The king and his subjects: is the Kauṭilyan state a despotism that owns the economy and fixes every man in his class, or a protection the king owes his people?

Kauṭilya, answered from the texts and cited to the page.

Kauṭilya answers

The question offers two words, despotism and protection, as if the king must be one or the other. Begin from how the king spends his day. He shall never make his petitioners wait at the door, for a king who makes himself inaccessible and leaves his work to his immediate officers engenders confusion in business, breeds public disaffection, and makes himself a prey to his enemies.1

He hears first the business of gods, of learned Brāhmaṇas, of cattle, of minors, the aged, the afflicted and the helpless, and of women, and all urgent calls he hears at once and never puts off.2 Of a king, the religious vow is his readiness to action, and satisfactory discharge of duties is his sacrifice.3 He is not to treat his own pleasure as the measure of the good: in the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, and whatever pleases them he shall consider good.3

On the economy, the state does not merely take; it builds and settles. The king carries on mining and manufactures, exploits the timber and elephant forests, lays roads by land and water, sets up market towns, and constructs reservoirs or gives sites and timber to those who build their own.4 He feeds the orphan, the aged, the infirm and the helpless, and gives subsistence to helpless women with child.4

He fines the man who neglects the maintenance of his wife, children or parents.4 New settlers are supplied with grain and cattle, and taxes are remitted when settlements are opened.4 Even in a great financial strain, the king who demands a third or a fourth of the grain may not demand it of those who help build fortifications, roads and gardens, or who colonise waste lands, nor of those who have not enough subsistence.5

Do not take this for sentiment. The king shall bestow on cultivators only such favour and remission as will swell the treasury, and avoid such as deplete it, for a king with an empty treasury eats into the very vitality of citizens and country people alike.4 Land is taken from those who will not cultivate it and given to those who will.4 The people's welfare and the king's revenue are one calculation.

The people are not an ornament to the state: forts, finance, the army, trade, agriculture and cattle-rearing all depend upon them, and the king is, as it were, the aggregate of the people.6 His character becomes theirs, and for their rise or fall they depend upon him.6 As to the classes: the king shall never allow people to swerve from their duties, for whoever upholds his own duty, adhering to the customs of the Āryas and the rules of caste and of the orders of life, will be happy here and hereafter.7

Whoever violates it brings confusion of castes and duties upon the world.7 This is a hard rule of rank and I state it as the book states it. But it stands beside duties common to all: harmlessness, truthfulness, purity, freedom from spite, abstinence from cruelty, and forgiveness.7 And the keeper of the order is held to the same measure as everyone else, for punishment awarded in greed or anger excites fury even among hermits in the forest, and only punishment as deserved makes the king respectable.8

The alternative to the rod is the law of the fishes, in which the strong swallow the weak, whereas under a magistrate's protection the weak resist the strong.8 So the state is a protection the king owes, and the protection is paid for by a treasury that the same king draws from the same people. A king who sees one and not the other will lose his kingdom.

The position in brief

The king's vow is his readiness to act and his sacrifice the discharge of business; he keeps no petitioner waiting at the door.9 The state settles the land, builds forts and irrigation, works its own mines, mints and workshops, fixes weights and prices, and feeds the orphan, the aged and the helpless; the people's prosperity is its revenue and their loyalty its strength, since disaffected subjects destroy even a strong king. Each class keeps to its own duty and the king does not let them swerve. An Ārya is never a slave.1011

Sources

  1. When in the court, he shall never cause his petitioners to wait at the door, for when a king makes himself inaccessible to his people and entrusts his work to his immediate officers, he may be sure to engender confusion in business, and to cause thereby public disaffection, and himself a prey to his enemies.
    Arthasastra
  2. He shall, therefore, personally attend to the business of gods, of heretics, of Brahmans learned in the Vedas, of cattle, of sacred places, of minors, the aged, the afflicted, and the helpless, and of women;... All urgent calls he shall hear at once, but never put off.
    Arthasastra
  3. Of a king, the religious vow is his readiness to action; satisfactory discharge of duties is his performance of sacrifice... In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness; in their welfare his welfare; whatever pleases himself he shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall consider as good.
    Arthasastra
  4. The king shall provide the orphans (bala), the aged, the infirm, the afflicted, and the helpless with maintenance. He shall also provide subsistence to helpless women when they are carrying and also to the children they give birth to.
    Arthasastra
  5. He shall, on the other hand, supply with grain and cattle those who colonise waste lands.
    Arthasastra
  6. the king is, as it were, the aggregate of the people... forts, finance, and the army depend upon the people; likewise buildings, trade, agriculture, cattle-rearing, bravery, stability, power, and abundance (of things).
    Arthasastra
  7. Hence the king shall never allow people to swerve from their duties; for whoever upholds his own duty, ever adhering to the customs of the Aryas, and the following rules of caste and divisions of religious life, will surely be happy both here and hereafter.
    Arthasastra
  8. whoever imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to the people; while he who awards mild punishment becomes contemptible. But whoever imposes punishment as deserved becomes respectable.
    Arthasastra
  9. Or in conformity to his capacity, he may alter the time-table and attend to his duties. When in the court, he shall never cause his petitioners to wait at the door, for when a king makes himself inaccessible to his people and entrusts his work to his immediate officers, he may be sure to engender confusion in business, and to cause thereby public disaffection, and himself a prey to his enemies.
    Arthasastra
  10. Harmlessness, truthfulness, purity, freedom from spite, abstinence from cruelty, and forgiveness are duties common to all. The observance of one's own duty leads one to Svarga and infinite bliss (Anantya). When it is violated, the world will come to an end owing to confusion of castes and duties.
    Arthasastra
  11. Unprepared land shall not be taken away from those who are preparing them for cultivation. Lands may be confiscated from those who do not cultivate them and given to others; or they mayibe cultivated by village labourers (gramabhft&ka) and traders (vaidehaka), lest those owners who do not properly cultivate them might pay less (to the government).
    Arthasastra

Where the argument is made

  • Book I, chapter 19, The Duties of a King, on the eight divisions of the day and night, the petitioner who must not wait at the door, and the king's vow of readiness to act
  • I.3 on the duties of the four classes and orders of life and the king who keeps them from swerving
  • II.1 on settling the countryside, remitting taxes to settlers and maintaining orphans, the aged, the infirm and the helpless
  • Book II on the superintendents and the state's mines, mint, salt, storehouses, weights and measures, liquor and shipping
  • III.13 on slaves and labourers
  • IV.8 on the Brāhmaṇa who is branded and banished rather than tortured
  • VII.5 on the impoverishment, greed and disaffection of subjects

How the argument was received

Read by Indian scholars of the national movement as an ancient welfare state and by others as the most complete design for royal absolutism and a fixed hierarchy; both readings find their pages.