RELEVANCE OF KAUTILYA’S POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE MODERN ERA
Author: Priyanshi Bansal [1]
Co-Author: Sparsh Agarwal[2]
ISSN: 2581-8465
Abstract –
“Public Administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy” – L.D. White
The public administration has played an important in Indian Politics perhaps since ages the public administration has come into existence. Chanakya, also known as Kautilya and Vishnugupta, is an ancient Indian political figure. He is believed to be an author of the Arthashastra (The science of wealth and governance). It is the best instance for an early Indian treatise on statecraft. Arthashastra of Kautilya is a classic example of a detailed description of why and how public organizations were created and maintained in ancient India. It believed that the modern Indian State is based upon the statecraft of Kautilya’s work in Arthashastra.
Kautilya emerges as one of the earliest precursors of the modern concept of value-based organization and leadership. Post- industrialization public organization is based on the welfare of society. Indeed, the pre-industrialization has the roots for this public office structure. Kautilya has earlier dug the roots for the welfare of the state in his statecraft’s theory. He has magnificently defined the state and powers of the head which in this work is in nexus to the Republic head of India i.e. President because in today’s era the monarchial rule is no more in power. The post-independence rule has abolished the role monarch perhaps adopted the same structure which has the roots for the welfare of the state.
The Indian Public Administration structure is the same as the statecraft theory, though the terms are different. Indeed, the process of appointment and powers of the public servant is the same in the post and pre-concept.
But the question arises:
- Is the administration which Kautilya determined for Bharat (India) can be elucidated in the modern era?
- What can be the approach of the modern era to deal with the public administration in context to the Kautilya’s public and judicial administration?
Thus, the work attempts to describe and explain the concept of the ancient public organization in India. It also tries to take a step for analyzing the post-industrialization structure with its roots of welfare dug by the Kautilya in the Murayana dynasty.
Indeed, the work tries to present the comprehensive views of Kautilya in nexus to the state and its same role in the modern Indian State. The modern Indian state is backed by the same powers and duties as stated in Arthashastra. The study also deals in the lacunas and modification in the modern administration of India which needs to be taken into consideration for further success.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
- The work aims to suggest the modified approach of Kautilya administration in the modern public and judicial administration.
- The objective of the research is to know how the Kautilya determined that his philosophy can be alive for ages and accepted in the modern era.
LITERATURE REVIEW
- Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design and the role of ethics in ancient India, Balbir S. Sihag
- Source: The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, 125-148, 3, (December 2004)
- Published by: The Academy of Accounting Historians
- The above work analysis Kautilya’s administration for the Maurya Dynasty in an aspect of the essentials which he expects from a king to observe it mandatorily towards his state (kingdom), population (pupil), Morals (dharma) etc. This work has indeed provided a guide for the approach of Kautilya for and towards the state so that it can help in providing the comparison of a democratic institution with his.
- Kautilya: Saptanga Theory of State, Kiranjit Kaur
- Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science
- Published by: Stanford Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 1 59-68, (JAN. – MAR., 2010)
- The above work recommends the essentials of state and its administration. The paper provided a guide for forming an approach that the state has certain essential elements through which a comparison can be set out with the modern aspect. This has indeed, turned up to be the framework of Kautilya’s aspect towards the state.
SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS
The work is limited due to the lack of time and constraint on the secondary resources. The data presented in the work is the analysis of other researchers or government portal. Thus, due to the lack of time, it has stuck to the secondary resource.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY FOR KAUTILYA’S ARTHASHASTRA
INTRODUCTION
Kautilya was a great political philosopher who lived during the period of Nanda dynasty and Alexander’s invasion. He was the person who tried to build up a new Indian polity with the proper administration through the Theory of Statecraft. Kautilya tried to create a strong and stable state with a benevolent king. He was the person who had the sense of patriotism which he generated in the society through his discourses and deliberations to fight against the wrongdoers and foreign invaders. He recognized the administration of the entire kingdom to ensure an honest, efficient and compassionate administration.[3] This ideology he brought in the administration of the Chandragupta Maurya which came to be the strong state. The result came as the clean administration and subsequently became the imperial king as the head of the state.
Thus, the thought and theory of Kautilya were quite different in that stage of a period which is the roots for the pure and clean administration. It is believed that the clean and proper administration is the concept brought by the Britishers in India. However, the administration and bureaucracy have the roots since the Mauryan dynasty. It is considered that Machiavelli is the first thinker who brought the theory of state but before him, Kautilya has given the theory of the state which is indeed directly or indirectly is found in today’s administration of India. Indeed, the concept of honest and clean administration is the essential condition of the state in the modern era too.
Furthermore, there are two basic features of the Indian administrative system which continued right down the ages:
- Co-ordination between the two opposite trends of centralization and decentralization.
- The importance of the villages as a primary unit and
This is the rationale which is determined since ages in India though post-independence has brought with few modifications. Thus, the administration with the honest bureaucracy has the roots since an age which is summarized as the concept of new theory. Kautilya has played a crucial role in establishing the roots of the loyal and clear administration in the monarchial rule which is the biggest difference in his administration and democracy of today’s state.
The head of the state is the change in the perspective of states otherwise all the rules and norms match each other.
KAUTILYA’S ARTHASHASTRA
Public Administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfillment or enforcement of the public policy. The public administration has played an important in Indian Politics perhaps since ages the public administration has come into existence. Chanakya believed to be an author of the Arthashastra (The science of wealth and governance) dug the roots of public administration in the Indian history, considering that the bureaucrats should be the servants of the people. It is the best instance for an early Indian treatise on statecraft. Arthashastra of Kautilya is a classic example of a detailed description of why and how public organizations were created and maintained in ancient India. It believed that the modern Indian State has the same administration as the Statecraft of Kautilya’s work in Arthashastra.
Kautilya has been addressed as an Acharya or guru and a statesman who aimed to have a loyal and developed state ship for the people of the state. Nehru describes Kautilya as[4]
“He sat with the reins of empire in his hands and looked upon the emperor more as a loved pupil than as a master. Simple and austere in his life, uninterested in the pomp and pageantry of high position.”
Indeed, Indian political thinker has already dug the roots of Public Administration since ages. Kautilya wrote The Arthashastra, the science of wealth and welfare, during the latter half of the 4th century BCE. The Arthashastra contains 150 chapters, which are classified by topic in 15 books. It consists of three reasonably well-developed parts:
- National security issues including foreign policy,
- Administration of justice including crime and punishment issues, and
- Policies were related to economic development, taxation, labour management and financial management.
Apart from above, Arthashastra is the work of exceptional interest in the field of Political Theory and Public Administration which consists of 15 Adhikaranas with 180 Prakaranas. The purpose of the sastra is to lay down the means for the acquisition and maintenance of dominion over the earth.[5] Indeed, these deals with different aspects of state and administration.
- The first part deals with the education, discipline of the king, the qualification of ministers, different kinds of spies, duties of the king etc.
- The second part deals with the land and village administration, the conduct of government servant, the officers and superintendents of the treasury etc.
- The third determines the forms of agreement, legal disputes, regarding marriage, agreement, sale and purchase etc.
- The fourth considers the removal of dangerous elements and criminal laws.
- The fifth part deals with the methods to remove state enemies and fill the treasury of the king.
- The sixth and seventh deals with the seven elements of kingship and six lines of policy.
- The eighth part deals with the vices of the king and calamities such as flood, fire etc.
The work deals with different subjects also, however, these (above) parts deal with the elements of the states. Indeed, Kautilya’s Arthashastra carries significance because for the very first time it liberated the science of politics from all sorts of limitations and developed systematic tools of administration of the state.
Thus, it is the most noticeable aspect that Kautilya’s work is the description of Public welfare in the monarchial state.
CHAPTER 2: CONCEPT OF INDIAN STATE
STRUCTURE OF THE STATE: COMPARATIVE STUDY
Political thought is concerned with the functions of the state which involves the administration and bureaucrats. Every political thinker has a different opinion regarding the meaning, origin, nature, functions, objectives and elements of the state. The idea of the state as an organized society goes back to the Greek city-states. Aristotle described it as the natural growth of family and village. However, in its modern sense, the term was first used by Machiavelli during the 16th-century general term for a body politic. C.L. Weyper divides the theories of the state into three broad categories:[6]
- The state as an organism;
- The state as a machine;
- The state as a class.
Indeed, in ancient times, the Arthasastra of Kautilya firstly defined the definition of the state. According to him ‘no territory deserves the name of unless it is full of people and controlled by an agglomeration of power with absolute over the territory”.[7] Kautilya’s Arthasastra is not a theoretical treatise on political science because it is the practical approach which was followed in the administration of Mauryan dynasty. Thus, it is basic for the structure of public administration.
The approach for the administration in the Modern era is as same as given by the Arthashastra. The public welfare is the basic concern for today political world and in the Arthashastra. Indeed, the entire teaching of the work is addressed to the king, the single ruler of the state but in the modern Indian administration, the monarchial rule is abolished. There is the difference between Arthashastra and Indian administration of modern era nexus to the monarchial rule and democracy respectively. The present state is under the governance of the democracy which also works for the welfare of the public. Despite the change in the rule of governance, working style in the political state is the same. It’s just the modification of the Theory of Statecraft of Kautilya.
Kautilya used the word ‘Rajya’ which according to Spellman, corresponds to the word ‘State’. The state is defined for the first time in the Arthasastra of Kautilya which has seven elements, a definition which becomes an axiom in the later sources. Kautilya in his Arthasashtra put the Amatyas, the Janapada, the Durgas, the Kosha, at a later row and added new elements at the state ‘the king of the state’ which also includes it’s kingdom too because all other elements revolve around these two elements. Thus, the relative importance of the number of the different elements in the following words ‘Swami- Amatya- Janapada- Durga- Kasha- Danda- Mitrani- Prakritayan to seven.[8] Thus, a state in its administration should have these elements to consider being complete which has the allotted tasks. These tasks are related to the welfare of the people.
Indeed, in the modern Indian administration, the chronological order is quite different due to the nature of the government. In Arthashastra, the King and his kingdom are the most important because it considers the Monarchial rule. Nevertheless, the monarchial rule is ended; now, in India, the Nominal Head of the State is the President, who has all the power and is considered the ruler for Parliamentary rule i.e. the rule of Ministers appointed by the people for their welfare.
This is the change of concept which makes it different but to some extent, working is the same. The detailing of the working of administration is indeed being discussed in the further Chapter.
CHAPTER 3: COMPARISON OF THE KAUTILYA’S ADMINISTRATION IN MODERN ERA
The administration of the society revolves around the public and judicial administration withhold by the government and judicial people. The varied elements were discussed by Kautilya for the working of a proper and justified administration. These elements have their sole recognition in that period under the Mauryan Dynasty worked as the welfare state. The need of an hour has developed the concept in the modified version. It has been observed that the elements of the administration have the same existence but with the change of concept and recognition in the society as the modern administration is the part of a democratic institution rather than of old dynasty of monarchial nature. Thus, the elements which Kautilya’s administration finds it necessary for the proper working of state are as follow:
- Swami: He is the head of the state and administration which occupies a prominent position in politics. According to him all the elements and other activities revolve around the swami because he is the leader of all. The king is not the elected person as that in the modern state but Kautilya being the realist focused on some qualities which a king should have as being the leader. He insisted that the king should be highly decent, godly nature, virtues, truthfulness, gratefulness, resolute, courageous, disciplined,[9] good fortune, intellect and prowess i.e. must be educated, stronger than neighbors’ kings and ministers of high quality, etc. He should also be determined, quick, and energetic because he is the Head of the sate exist with different types of duty like the appointment of ministers, protection of the people, ability to give justice, and inflict punishment.[10] Thus, he is the most powerful authority having all the authority.
It is considered that the happiness of the people should be the happiness of the king. Thus, the king is the preserve of Dharma and he should prevent the abusing of the absolute sovereignty which is vested in him. The monarch at the top is responsible for the smooth and efficient functioning of the government and stands as the mother and father of the people. Thus, according to Kautilya, a good and wise king ruling benevolently becomes a blessing to the people who prosper under him. [11]
The king has different powers being the head of the entire governmental system. According to Kautilya, the king has the Executive and Administrative Power as he has the power to appoint ministers, spies, ambassadors, etc, Legislative Power because is the symbol of law, authority, and justice, Judicial Power as he can appoint the judges for the justice in the society, Financial Power, Military Power as he was Commander in Chief of the army.
The king should have all the above qualities and powers; indeed, the Kautilya’s Head of the state resembles the modern Head of State I.e. President who is empowered with all the power and duties. The difference exists is regarding the elected head of the State. The President of India is the head of the state who is appointed after the elections, not hierarchical, in a modern state that also has the same powers but the qualification is different. All the above qualification is not required for the present Head.
Thus, the king and President to the extent are same in nature and the Kautilya’s theory being old but apply to the modern era in the modified form.
- Amatya: He is the second element of the state. According to Kautilya, Amatya means the council of ministers. In Arthashastra, the Amatya constitute a regular cadre of service from which all high offices such as Chief priest, ministers, collectors; envoys and the superintendent of various departments are to be recruited.[12] According to him, these people are wheels for the king’s administration. Amatya does not restrict to the ministers only, indeed it includes the other people too. The king cannot work without the assistance of these ministers and he needs to appoint them for their advice.
However, Kautilya asserts that the king should not appoint more than 3 or 4 councillors because according to him single martin won’t be able to control the administration and more than two can result in the conspiracy against the kingdom or revelation of secrets and conflicts. Due to this reason, he states for the 3 to 4 people in the council.
According to Kautilya, amatyas can be appointed when they clear test like men of wisdom, integrity, bravery and loyalty which is tested in four ways i.e. loyalty to the king, not falling prey to monetary allurement, facing a crisis calmly and completely self-control under the sexual provocations.[13] If anyone fails then he is appointed as the in charge of the mines etc. He also recommends that the king should test the people who were his classmates, knows them personally because he would know their every interest.
The king having the small cabinet can conduct the secret consultation with the council and can take the opinion of the ministers jointly or individually. It is known as the Mantri Parishad i.e. Council of Ministers. The king follows the course recommended by the majority.[14] Moreover, if the matters are urgent then the council can be summoned by the king for the consultations. Thus, the Kautilya also insist to constitute the Mantri Parishad i.e. Council of Ministers as the advisory body which is according to me is like the modern Council to some extent. Moreover, the success of the king depends on the successful working of the individual ministers.
Ministers have the major responsibility to guarantee the security of persons and property, finding remedies against calamities, recruiting a good army, collection of revenue and improvement of treasury etc. furthermore, the king can ask the ministers to take care of the poor and destitute and should emphasize agriculture, industry, trade, food supply, labour, transport, morality and health.[15] Hence, Kautilya also focuses on the welfare state for which the ministers have the duty.
Indeed, in the modern era, the President also has the council which is headed by the Prime Minister of India. The members are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The President is advised by the ministers that are accepted by him. The Council of Ministers is the core members of President who advise him on certain matters due to which the President takes the decision. However, the qualification is different from that of Mantri Parishad. The Council of Ministers is not tested on certain qualities as recommended by the Kautilya for the king’s core members.
Moreover, the ministers need to maintain the secrecy about the work for which they can be individually or collectively liable.
Hence, the ministers of Kautilya’s theory and modern era have the same powers and functions for which they are bound to consider. The only difference exist is about the test for the appointment.
- Janapada: It is one of the most important elements of the state. The territory and population both are the pre-requisite for the creation of the state. The territory should contain fertile land, mines, pasture grounds, forests and waterways etc. Indeed, these are the most important of all for whom the king and ministers have the undue responsibility. The king needs to take every decision for the welfare of the state and ministers are the public servants of the public. The reason behind such ideology is that the administration could exist if it is attributed by the people and its territory. The Kautilya believed in the welfare state.
Nevertheless, the janapada is quite important for today state too. Indeed, the administration has transferred the state into a welfare state in which the ministers are the public servants and work for the benefit of the state.
However, the expectations from the administration are more but it is also recommended that the people should be of good character and loyal. The inhabitation by industrious sudhras peasants should be capable to pay taxes from which the administration works. However, it today’s era the population has the few taxes imposed by the government which are needed to be paid by everyone irrespective of the class.
Indeed, the focus of janapada can be elaborated in the aspect of the administration
- Corruption: The Public Administration has different criteria for the welfare of the state, however, the lust and greed of the people cease it to be same because the wrongful acts are being conducted by the people who are in power. This leads to the discrimination of the people. Thus, the Kautilya determines the different process for the appointment of the ministers. The ministers according to him are appointed who are not in lust, greed, an attitude of piety or lucre etc. the state is for the people in which there is no place for the corruption.
Indeed, It’s same in the modern era, no public servant is allowed to indulge in the corruption and for which the rules and regulations are drafted under the legislation i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. It has been enacted to combat corruption in the government agencies and the public sector.
Hence, the public servants or ministers are not allowed to indulge in the corruption against the proper administration. It has the prints in the history of India which is constituted with the proper check and balance.
- Danda: According to Kautilya, Danda is the law of punishment or science of government.[16] Danda gives protection to the weak against the strong. It helps to obligate the people to do their respective duties. Every person comes in the ambit of the punishment if he/she is the defaulters irrespective of the caste, creed, privileged or underprivileged.
Kautilya states that the public servant will be punished for his/her defaults. The defaulters can be sentenced with the mutilation of limbs, imprisonment, fine, or death. He states that when the government servants commit for the first time such offences as a violation of sacred institution on pickpocketing, their thumb and the little fingers shall be cut off.[17]
These punishments are being defined for the welfare of the state.
In the modern era, the defaulter public servants are also punished for their defaults under the legislations to maintain peace and decorum in society. The defaulters other than public servants are punished under codified law of IPC, 1860 in the modern era which can be identical with Kautilya’s Arthashastra in respect to justice. However, the way of punishing is not the same as in ancient time due to the violation of human rights.
Hence, the public administration of Kautilya and modern era are quite synonymous. Ancient India has the roots of the public administration. The concept has not been introduced by the Britishers. The modification is the essence of time. With the change in time, the concept of public administration has increased in nexus to the human rights of people. However, there are few differences in the thought and ideology of Kautilya which mismatches the concept in the modern era. The administration of the public in India has emerged with the modified requirements. The appliance of Kautilya administration needs to be adjusted with the democratic aspect of the institution. Kautilya worked for the welfare of people identifying the work of Head with his Council. Such has been transformed into a democratic aspect with the welfare state. The objective of both is the same as the different working style. Indeed, it needs to modify the changing and developed demands of the nation.
CHAPTER 4: THE MODIFICATION DERIVED IN THE MODERN ADMINISTRATION
MODIFICATION AND CONCLUSION
It is well identified that the public administration of Kautilya relies upon the monarchial rule whereas the modern era has the parliamentary democracy in India in which the members are being elected by the people. The head of Kautilya’s state is the king who is not elected by the people. This is the major difference in the administration of the state. In the modern era, the head i.e. President is the elected representative. He is not as powerful as that of the king because he lacks in the few powers like financial and legislative powers. Moreover, in the grievous matters, he cannot judge the defaulters as they are being executed by the judicial body.
This is an important modification in the powers of the head. The modern era has the rule of Separation of Power. The President is the executive only where the judicial and legislative powers are less in comparison to the king of Kautilya. Although he has less it is necessary for today’s zone because human rights are attached to the same.
The difference comes in the election process of the President and council of ministers. The Prime minister is the nominal head of the today state that has the most and the highest power as compared to the President.
Indeed, the modification has come in the election process due to the political and socio change because today’s society is the democratic society which has sovereign popularity. The welfare state has the roots of ancient society but with the needs of the people, it has changed to some extent.
The council of ministers indeed has the same role and obligations towards the people of the state. The only difference comes in the matter of punishment because the cruelty that Kautilya defines for the defaulters is not possible in the modern era. The reason is the inseparable human rights. The punishment defined by the thinker is quite harsh and cruel but that might be essential for that time and after the certain circumstances, today, the human rights come as a priority which couldn’t be taken into the due consideration for today’s administrators.
In terms of justice, Kautilya can be identified very well whether it’s about the defaulter as a public servant or other than that. In modern terms, the judicial administration is modified in India with the change of requirements and justified for humanity.
Thus, the Kautilya has played a crucial role in the establishment of the public and justice administration. His theory is the roots for the public administration which is not the new or Britishers concept in the Indian society. According to us, there still exist the similarities between the powers and functions of the state administrators and state is treated as the welfare state in that era and today’s era too even though the body of implementation varies.
[1] Student of Law {B.A., LL.B.(H) (10th Semester)}, Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida Campus, Noida Sector-125, Uttar Pradesh. E-Mail ID: [email protected], Ph. No. +91- 9634201834.
[2] Student of Law {B.A., LL.B.(H) (10th Semester)}, School of Law, IMS Unison University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E-Mail ID: [email protected], Ph. No. +91- 9149010358.
[3] Manoj Sharma, Political Theory and Thought, (Anmol Publications Pvt. Limited, 1st Edition, 2004).
[4] Balbir S. Sihag, “Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design and the role of ethics in ancient India”, 31/2 The Accounting Historians Journal 125-148 (2004).
[5] Supra Note 3.
[6] Kiranjit Kaur, “Kautilya: Saptanga Theory of State”, 71/1 The Indian Journal of Political Science 59-68 (2010).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Id.
[9] Supra Note 3.
[10] Supra Note 7.
[11] Supra Note 7.
[12] Supra Note 3.
[13] Supra Note 3.
[14] Supra note 3 at 19.
[15] Supra note 3 at 19- 20.
[16] Supra note 3 at 24.
[17] Supra note 3 at 25.