INDIA

1 History

2 Castes

3 Kingship

4 Morality & Pragmatism

5 Kautilya’s Artashastra:
Approach & Method

6 Kautilya on Political Economy and

Foreign Policy
7 Buddhism

Pasaporte, C.A. & Serrano, S. C.

• Politics was the product of ritual and philosophical
texts: Rig Veda (c.1300-c.1000BCE) and Mantric
Vedas (c.1200-1000BCE) and early Brahmanas
(c.1000-c.800BCE)

• Dharma – morality, piety, virtue and social order but

do not have a guide in a ruler’s action.

• Dharmashastra – duties of the constituents and the

king

• Arthashastra – a genre on writing on economics and

politics. Concerned with the terminology, arguments
and methods in making decisions.
• Dharmasutras – recognized reasoning as an
important means in applying sacred tradition in the
present events.

• Mahabrata – an epic poem, or one of the two major

Sanskrit epic, discussing about kingship. It has
religious canon and arthashatras.
• Varna: colour; system of caste.

• The caste system was brought by Indo-Europens

• The top three “twice born” are full members of the

Aryan society. The system is determined by race,
ritual, and socio-economic status. This is designed to
maintain purity among the top three cases in order
to prevent ritual contamination, reserve prestigious
occupations for the elites, and can also be a way to
distribute and monopolize status and power.

• This was largely accepted due to the concept of

karma – the present life is the result of the past life.
• Tribal aristocracy and chieftainship to a state. Kings
used to be elected.

• Under the influence of Vedic religion, a sacred

kingship. This can be found in the Ramayana, where
Rama is presented as an ideal king.

• Brahmin priests legitimize kings because they are the

superior when it comes to the religious sphere.

• Dharma is followed in judicial proceedings.

Dharmashastras override custom, royal edicts
override dharmashastras.
• Kshatriya caste acquire large estates and are
regulated by village council (panchayat).

• Larger kingdoms (mahajanapadas) emerged during

sixth and fifth centuries BCE after the Greek invasion
which paved way for the Mauryan dynasty and
under Ashoka.

• The god Varuna appointed the king which made

the state as a composite entity.
• According to the Rig Veda, the god Brahma
instituted kingship. In Rig Veda, the gods arranged
Indra to be their king.

• According to Mahabrata, there are three origins of

the state: quasi-Hobbesian, quasi-Lockean, and
organic theory.

• Quasi-Hobbesian: Social contract theory; without

kingship, society and cosmos will have a chaos.
• Quasi- Lockean: Divine Right Theory; people used to
protect themselves by the means of dharma alone,
but then lost their morality. They asked king Vishnu for
a human king.

• Organic theory: the state is like an organism and that

each organ has a specific function to perform.
Different writings spelled out on what a king should
do.
• Kings come from the kshatri caste and together with
the Brahmins maintain morality, and upholding the
four stages of life and four castes.

• In conclusion, kingship is sacred monarchy but not

totally. He listens to the chief-priest (purohita) and
altogether serves as the divine representatives. The
king can intervene in all aspects of life – theoretically
omnipotent.
• The conflict between ethics and politics. The theories
and practical application. The relationship between
the demands of dharma and the needs of the
political community.

• A king should rule according to royal ethics

(rajadharma). A true king is dharmatman-an
embodiment of dharma, order, truth, norm and
justice. He upholds varnas and asramas.
• The Arthashastra refers to a practice of political
diplomacy that arose in India, and is epitomized by
the written material on position, policy and military
strategy written by Kautilya. Kautilya was an
academician at Taxila University and later the Prime
Minister of the Mauryan Empire.
• He is referred to as the Indian Machiavelli as a result
of his undisputed and shrewd techniques and
policies, which mirror a "realist" approach to politics,
diplomacy and warfare. His Arthashastra text
recommended that no means were on the far side
scope of a ruler to expand his territory or obtain
power as well as the unscrupulous ethics of
permitting torture, trickery, deceit, and spying as
legitimate suggests, to realize territory, wealth and
power.
• Kautilya’s work, the only surviving example of the
arthashastra genre, was probably written c. 150 BCE,
but was revised and added to up to the third
century CE . This is a work without parallel in the
ancient world. It covered the whole range of
practical politics, foreign as well as domestic, in
great detail. Kautilya’s approach to politics was
pragmatic and down-to-earth. He considered a
wide range of possible situations and alternative
courses of action. How one should act—whether in
treating seeds or negotiating with an ally—depends
upon the specific situation. He is inventive in his
search for practical solutions .
• While there is much in Kautilya that sounds a bit
Machiavellian, he envisaged no fundamental
separation between power and morality or religion.
This was possible because the relationship between
religious ethics (dharma) and political power (artha)
was conceived differently in ancient India from the
way it was conceived in modern Europe.
• The religious norms of Kautilya’s society were of such
a kind that one did not have to contravene them in
order to deal effectively with ruthless opponents.
Thus, a royal servant ‘shall give his advice always in
accordance with dharma and artha. Kautilya’s
advice on the treatment of newly conquered
territories, for example, combined quasi
Machiavellian recommendations about winning
hearts and minds with an underlying concern for
reform in accordance with dharma.
• The purpose of the art of government is ‘the
acquisition of things not possessed, the preservation
of things possessed, the augmentation of things
preserved…’ A king can “Not violating righteousness
and economy, he shall enjoy his desires. He needs a
sound economy for political stability and achieve his
political objectives.

• Economic and political power are interdependent.

Foreign policy must be based on sound finances. He
needs to manage production and distribution of
goods, and the supply and demand in order to
maximize the extraction of the revenue of the state.
• The sole aim is to promote the interests of one’s own
king and country. One should ‘trade with such
foreign countries as will generate a profit’, and
‘avoid unprofitable areas’, unless there are ‘political
or strategic advantages in exporting to or importing
from a particular country’ (KA 2.16.18–25). He
subjects foreign policy to cost–benefit analysis: ‘the
king shall undertake a march when the expected
gain outweighs the losses and expenses’ (KA 9.4.3).
The expense of war means that peace is usually
preferable, other things being equal.
• The conqueror who acquires new territory should act
virtuously so as to win the hearts and minds of his
new subjects. He should fulfil promises he has made
to former supporters of his enemy. A new king should
also adopt the ‘way of life, dress, language and
behaviour’ of his subjects; he should promote their
religious practices, and provide funds for their men
of learning and piety (KA 13.5.3–11). He should,
however, put a stop to customs which are
‘unrighteous’, ‘harmful to the treasury and the army’,
or ‘not in accordance with dharma’. He should
replace them with ‘customs which are in
accordance with dharma’ (KA 13.5.14 and 24). In all
these respects, Ashoka was presumably his model.
• Kautilya’s arthashastra is unlike any other surviving
document of the ancient world. There was nothing
like it even in Greece or China, with all their
philosophy, perhaps because of all their philosophy.
It was written in full awareness of the practicalities of
government; yet it drives no wedge between politics
and ethics. Kautilya’s work was used by later Indian
writers. Yet there was no further development of this
genre.55 The approach of the arthashastras found its
way into Sasanid Iran, and from there into the Islamic
Caliphate. Muslim writers, like the writers of
arthashastras, were able to combine moral ideals
with downto-earth practical advice in a manner
unknown to medieval and early modern Europe.
• The first individual in India for whom historical records
exist, lived in the sixth century BCE.

• Least political among all of the ancient world-views.

Its goal is to release oneself and other sentient
beings (nirvana) from mental and physical suffering.

• Sangha – a new society founded by Buddhism. Any

person from any race, caste, gender, or age could
join and dedicate themselves in pursuit for
enlightenment.
• The good life was separated from politics.

• It rejected two Indian political thought: caste and

moral acceptance of power. For Buddhism, power
politics is inherently selfish unlike Vedic religion where
it accepts the political and economic sphere pf
artha as a separate category.

• It rejected caste system by disconnecting karma

from the social structure. Individual people might be
able to attain enlightenment in this life and held
that caste was not a punishment for deeds
committed in a past life.
• One’s duties is not based on his caste but on his
ability to pay. A person should “work hard, does not
dissipate his wealth, but makes maximum use of it;
preserves and expands his property, and saves a
portion of his wealth for times of need”. Buddhism
gave importance to agriculture, commerce,
productive labour and wealth acquired through this.

• They foresee a righteous king whose two primary

duties are to support family and property – and
eliminate poverty, which is the source of violence.
• World ruler or cakkavati is the ideal Buddhist king,
one who is full of moral principles (dhamma).

• Ashoka – exemplary Buddhist righteous world ruler.

He treated everyone equally and no violence
happened under his term.

• Buddha might have separated god life from politics

but he was still very firm in rejecting caste system.