________________
which is the proper use of force (danda). The maintenance and promotion of public order and welfare, thus, constitute the basic ends within the structure of niti. The exercise of authority or just force constitutes the essential means. Public order is conceived in a comprehensive sense, material as well as moral. Justice is conformity to laws which are given traditionally. Power presupposes socially given modes of organisation and springs from efficiency, morale and leadership. These, again, depend on aptitude and training knowledge and habitual skill. The acceptance of a traditional social system is inbuilt in the structure of niti. It is this conservatism which despite the rational and utilitarian outlook of niti towards organization and policy separates it from modern thought.
Niti, however, is a viable perspective on public administration and diplomacy considered in their essential aspects. It is true that niti is neither utopian nor experimental in outlook. It does not regard man as a mere bundle of social relations, nor human life as another name for collective history. It does not regard the state as endowed with Messianic charisma nor money as the measure of man or the basis of social stratification. It does not regard the untutored will of the multitude as vox dei. It does not regard the government and its laws as the expression of mere fiat, however broadbased. Nor does it envisage the state as engaged in the task of altering the structure of society constantly to suit the convenience of those who happen to have acquired unaccustomed wealth or have organized themselves powerfully enough to challenge the might of the government. It would seem, then, that the conservatism of niti is not the result of mere simplicism or lack of thought but is rooted in sharp contrast to some aspects of the prevailing modern outlook.
If we reflect over this contrast of outlooks we shall be faced with basic moral questions. Behind niti lies dharma which deprecates violence, competitive interests and acquisitiveness. For the sake of their true happiness and welfare men must learn to limit their wants, interests and possessions. Doubtless the ideal values of ahimsa, sa mata and aparigraha stand in contrast to the natural tendencies of the average man who is moved by the impulses of aggressiveness, self-interest and acquisitiveness. Now, should political science take such a natural man to be ultimate for its purposes and merely seek to devise means of conferring maximum success on the more ambitious of such individuals, classes or nations? If this be rejected, will not political science be required to devise means for regeneration of mankind through its re-education?
This re-education cannot be simply intellectual and scientific. It must be a re-education of natural impulses, the inculcation of a coherent order of
111
