________________
175
SEPTEMBER, 1925]
THE DATE OF THE KAUTILIYA
Vedanta-sutras, though they existed long prior to the Bhagavadgitâ, were added to from time to time and acquired their present fixity, when they were first commented upon by a most erudite commentator, perhaps Upavarsha. If such is the case, that particular trait of the sûtra style, which refers to the opponents' views along with their names and demolishes them by establishing the doctrine of the author, can very well date back to a time much anterior to the Bhagavadgitá and even the Kautilya. There is, therefore, nothing strange in Kautilya imitating that style in his Arthasdstra. Again, it is worthy of note that the Nyayasûtras, as they exist at present, like the Vedanta-sûtras in their present form are of the third century A.D. But curiously enough they do not share this trait of style and we may therefore reasonably ask why they should not share it with the Kamasutras of Vatsyayana, although both belonged practically to the same period. The truth appears to be that style is not always a safe argument to go upon. No doubt there are many works of one and the same period which partake of the same characteristic style, but that does not preclude an author from imitating another style,-a style not prevalent in his day. It will thus be seen that the trait of style shown by the Arthasdstra is also shown by the Vedantasûtras, the greater part of which are as old as the fourth century B.C., if not older.
We now turn to a consideration of the views of Dr. Kalidas Nag.14 He scouts the idea that the entire Arthasástra has come out from the head of Kautilya, like Minerva from the head of Zeus' and refers the work in its present form to the post-Mauryan period. His main contention is that the diplomacy of the Kauțiliya is not that of a centralised empire, but indeed that of a very divided feudalism, in which each chief is in perpetual conflict with his peers for hegemony and in his turn is crushed by a new series of wars. It represents the normal atomist politics of a very decentralised epoch,-quite the reverse of the politics of a great empire. Thus the diplomacy of the Kautiliya is either anterior or posterior to the Mauryas and does not show any trace of the centralising imperialism of Chandragupta.' In trying to establish his thesis he even goes so far as to deny the existence of the term Chakravartin in the treatise. But every student of the Arthasástra knows that Kautilya distinctly refers to this term. Thus Kautilya says: Deśaḥ prthivi: tasya Himavatsamudrântaramudichinam yojanasahasraparimâṇamatiryakchakravartiksetram.16
[Desa (country) means the earth; in it the thousand yojanas of the northern portion of the country that stretches between the Himalayas and the oceans form the dominion of Chakravartin or Emperor.]16
i
It is clear therefore that Kautilya expressly refers to Northern India (udicht) as the seat of a big empire (chakravartiksetra), which is inconsistent with the supposition of Mr. Nag that the Kautilya reveals the picture of a decentralised feudalism. Clearly Mr. Nag has been misled by those chapters in which Kautilya discusses the theories of inter-State relations and war. In explaining these theories Kautilya has to assume the grouping of states; but nowhere does he say that these states were all small. No one again will deny the existence of big states like Russia and France in modern Europe, merely from the fact that there is conflict-I might almost say perpetual conflict-amongst the states for hegemony. Yet the theories of inter-state relations of Kautilya can be applied substantially to modern Europe, with its great states like Russia and France and tiny states like Belgium and Greece. Kautilya truly remarks:
tejo hi sandhanakaraṇam: nátaptam lauham lohena sandhatta iti.
(It is power that maintains peace between any two kings: no piece of iron that is not made red hot will combine with another piece of iron.)17
(To be continued.)
14 Les Theories Diplomatiques De L'inde Ancienne et L'Arthasastra, Paris, 1923, pp. 114-121. 18 Trans., 2nd ed., P. 396.
15 Arthasdstra, 2nd ed., p. 340.
17 Arthadastra 2nd ed., p. 269. Trans., 2nd ed., p. 322.
