|
Dharmashastra, |
The Dharmashastras are Hindu scriptures that
include moral precepts and principles for religious duty and good behaviour.
In the past, Hindu kings imposed rules as part of their religious duty, and
they created the parameters for their social and religious code of conduct.
This article will explain to you the Dharmashastras which will be helpful in
Ancient History preparation for the UPSC Civil service exam. Dharmashastras Dharmashastras
Origin Dharmashastras
- Origin
Composition Dharmashastras
- Composition
Meaning
of Dharma Meaning
of Dharma
Significance Dharmashastras
- Significance
Influence Dharmashastras
- Influence
Conclusion Conclusion Dharmasastra
is a Sanskrit literary genus that refers to Hinduism's Dharma treatises
(shastras). The Hindu Dharmashastras are ancient Hindu law texts that propose
moral norms and principles for ardent duty and ethical behaviour for the
faith's believers. In the past, Hindu rulers enforced laws as part of their
religious obligation, and they created the parameters for their social and
religious code of behaviour. Manu's
text contain12 chapters with 2685 verses, it is evident from the translated
work of C. Buhler, and other scholars. Manu's
Samriti covers following topics (K. S. Padhy, 2011):
Table: Table reflect the Mnu's
text (K. S. Padhy, 2011)
In
his valuable work, Manu elaborated the text on following (K. S. Padhy, 2011): -
Origin of universe and rules for the rituals. -
Keeping promises and attending the teacher. -
Kinds of marriages. -
Regulation for great sacrifices and the obligatory rule for the ceremonies
for the dead and for questioning witnesses.. -
Various means of livelihood, vows of the Vedic graduate, kinds of food to be
eaten, purification and cleansing of impurities. -
Duties of women, of a king, of a husband and wife, heretics. -
Freedom and renunciation. -
Partition of property, gambling, and cleaning out thorns. -
Attendance by commoners and servants and origin of confused classes. -
Religious duties of all classes in extremity and rules for restorations. -
Three fold course for transmigration that arises from the effect of past
actions. -
Supreme good and examination of the virtues and vices of the effect of past
actions. -
Obligatory duties of countries, cates and families. It
can be said that text of Manu focused on life, how is it or how it should be?
It is about Dharma which covers notions like religion, duty, law, right,
justice, practice and principle (K. S. Padhy, 2011). It describes religion in
its entirely good and bad effect of the past actions and the external code of
conduct of four classes of people. The code is the highest law and it is
described in the revealed canon and in tradition. Therefore, a twice born
person who is self-possessed should always practice it. He who fails to do so
does not reap the fruit of the Veda. Its strict adherence ensures full
enjoyment of the fruit. Manu's text though ancient cannot be ignored for its
comprehensiveness. It covers family life, psychology, human body, sex,
relationship between humans and animals attitude to money and material
possession, politics, law, castes, purification and pollution, rituals,
social practices and ideals, world renunciation and worldly goals. Manu's
teaching inspire humans to fulfil his promises and liberate himself from the
consequences of his past deeds. He not only purifies himself of all his sins
but help his predecessors and successors up to seven generations in achieving
salvation. Manu's law are found in Vedas (K. S. Padhy, 2011). Yajnavalkya
Smriti: Except Manu Smriti, the code of Yajnavalkya attained supreme position
in Hindu jurisprudence. When it was found by the intellectuals of the then
Hindu society that the rules as laid down by Manu needed a revision,
Yajnavalkya collected his own code in around 200 A.D. known as Yajnavalkya
Smriti. However this Smriti follows the same pattern as of Manu Smriti in the
treatment of subjects, it is scientific and more systematic. It evades
replication. J.C. Ghose stated that though Manu's authority is unquestioned
by all Hindus, it is the law of Yajnavalkya by which they are really governed.
Yajnavalkya Smriti contained 1010 verses divided into three chapters namely
achara, vyavahara and prayaschitta. On matters such as women's right of
inheritance and right to hold property and criminal penalty, Yajnavalkya
Smriti is more liberal than Manu Smriti. It is thought that the deep
influence of the teachings of Buddha had great impact on the society which
has found itself expressed in the form of more humane provisions of law in
the Yajnavalkya Smriti. When comparing Manu Smriti text, Yajnavalkya Smriti
is very brief, scientific and practical. By writing explanation on
Yajnavalkya Smriti under the title, Mitakshara, Vigneshwara greatly advanced
the prestige and authority of Yajnavalkya Smriti. Vigneshwara was a south
Indian who lived during 1050-1100 A.D. The interpretation of Vigneshwara has
been recognized as the paramount authority on Hindu law in the whole of India
except the province of Bengal, where the Jumutavahana's code known as
Dayabhaga controls supreme. Narada
Smriti: This Smriti consists of 1028 verses. Dr. Jolly who has translated
this Smriti pronounces that the date of this Smriti is later than 300 A.D.
and that the writer of this Smriti welcomed from Nepal. Narada has not been
quoted by Kautilya and so he must have been certainly after Kautilya and not
prior to him. This Smriti exclusively deals with forensic law, both
substantive and technical without any reference to penance and other
religious matters. Thus, Narada Smriti makes a departure from the earlier
works and can be considered as purely relating to law. It deals with courts
and judicial procedure and also lays down the law regulating the 18 titles
with great clarity. Narada was independent in his interpretations and did not
allow himself to be bound by the earlier text. This Smriti is noteworthy for
its liberal views on various matters. For instances, in the matter of
inheritance, Narada Smriti provides for an equal share in property for the
mother along with her sons after the death of her husband. In marriage, he
holds that a widow as well as a wife whose husband is impotent or absconding
is entitled to remarriage. In politics Narada was par excellence champion of
royalty. He is the solitary writer who went to the extent of maintaining that
even a worthless ruler must be constantly worshipped by his subject. A
basic principle of Hindu political thought was the faith that the king must consider
himself not as the creator of the law but only as its guardian. The
Narada-Smrti is an omission. In this work the royal decree is regarded as
legitimate in its own right. Perhaps the most authoritarian of Indian
writers, Narada stressed that the king be obeyed whether right or wrong in
his actions. Narada Smrti refers to four successive versions of the Manu's
code. The original text had 1,00,000 slokas with 1,080 chapters when it was
first given to Narada. Narada is said to have edited it before he passed it
on to Markandeya with 12,000 slokas. Markandeya in turn taught it to Sumati,
the son of sage Bhrgu, as consisting of 8,000 slokas. Sumati reduced it to
4,000 slokas. But the present form of Manu Smrti, as it comes to public,
include only of 2,635 slokas spread over 12 chapters. Nevertheless, the
legitimacy of Narada Smrti is generally considered to be uncertain as it
belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era. The above account of the
Narada Smrti may be not reliable. However, its suggestion that Manu Smrti had
different versions need not be disregarded. As to the exact date of the
Smrti, there are contradictory views held by different researchers. Indian
chronology has been so challenging that it is difficult to determine the
exact periods of most of the ancient Sanskrit texts and Manu Smrti is no
exception. However, It can be accepted that the code had an oral tradition
for about three centuries before it acquired present form around second
century B.C. However,
from about the third century B.C., there was growing appreciation of the need
to relate law and tradition to changing social conditions. This mindfulness
can be understood in the Dharma Sastra work credited to Yajnavalkya. In that
work and in the codes of other legal authorities, it is contended that the
proclamation must synchronise with customary and sacred law and that
departures from the original rajadharma must be carefully controlled.
Judicial offices were generally to be filled by brahmans, since no man could
be judged by one who was not at least his social equal and since the sin
involved in the crime must also be judged. The earliest court was likely the
king's palace, but by the time of the Dharma Sastras intricacies of judicial
administration required formal institutions of a more specialized nature.
There existed a regular procedure for appeal from lower to higher courts. The
political explanation of the Dharma Sastras is alike to that of the
Arthasastra authors. Tax revenue was seen as the king's equitable due in
return for the security he provided. For social stability legal theorists
elaborated rules of statecraft with Kautilyan candor, but usually (as in
Yajnavalkya) military action was to conform to a code of conduct. The method
of the power balance was understood, and alliances were considered among the
major assets of the state. In Hindu political theory, diplomacy is built on
the interrelationships within a group of states, all gracefully labelled in
terms of their probable effect on the fortunes of the home state. This theory
(mandala) is based on the assumption that the king, by nature, aspires to
conquest and that his neighbour is his enemy. The natural ally is the kingdom
on the opposite edge of the opponent. It
is well acknowledged that Dharma Shastras give too much importance to the
aspect of dharma. Dharma-shastra is the "science of dharma" and is
a set of texts which teach the eternal immutable dharma found in the Vedas.
Dharma Shastras is a term denotes to all or any of numerous codes of Hindu
civil and social law composed by various authors. The best known and most
respected are those by Manu and Yajnavalkya. The Dharma Shastras are part of
the Smriti literature, included in the Kalpa Vedanga, and are widely
available today in many languages. The Dharma-shastras expanded and
remodelled in verse form the Dharmasutras. Both these groups of texts are
commonly translated as "The Law Books" but this is misleading.
Dharma means a great deal more than "Law" (see Sva-dharma) and in
classical Hindu thought there was no distinction between religion and law. In
socio-religious terms dharma upholds private and public life and establishes
social, moral, and religious order. As the basis for the legal system dharma
is a system of natural laws with specific rules derived from an ideal, moral,
and eternal order of the universe. The most succinct statements on dharma are
found in the Dharma-shastras and Dharmasutras, which can be divided into
three categories: rules for good conduct, rules for legal procedure, and
rules for penance. The
Dharma-shastras prescribed rules for all of society, so that each person
might live according to dharma. These texts are accredited to ancient rishis,
seers or sages. Dharma Shastras is the description of legal literature in
Sanskrit. It consists of laws and rules of conduct of the people of different
category and had its origin in the Dharma Sutras which formed a part of the
Vedanga Kalpa Sutras. Dharma means what upholds an individual; what sustains
one; what leads to happiness; one's own obligations or duties; sacred law;
moral order; practicing various truths responsible for integrated
development; correctness; eternal principle; philosophy of life; estimable
act and so on. Dharma Shastras or Science of Law contains Dharma Sutras and
Smritis. Manu
was the most important figure of these and his Manava Dharma-shastra (Laws of
Manu) is the most famous of the texts. It is also called the Manusmrti from
smrti. It is in the form of the dharma exposed by Brahma to Manu, the first
man, and passed on through Bhrigu, one of the ten great sages. A divine
origin is claimed for all the Dharma-shastras to enable their general
acceptance. The Manusmrti designates the creation of the world by Brahma,
Manu's own birth, the sources of dharma, and the main ceremonies of the four
stages of life. This was to develop into the successive stages of life. To
reach the fourth stage of renunciation, it was necessary to pass through the
other three stages. Other chapters deal with the duties of a king, the mixed
castes, the rules of occupation in relation to caste, occupations in times of
distress, expiations of sins, and the rules governing specific forms of
rebirth. Though a theoretical textbook, the Manusmrti wrote about the
practicalities of life and is largely a textbook of human conduct. After Manu
came Dharma-shastras attributed to Yajnavalkya, Vishnu, Narada, Brhaspati,
Katyayana, and others. The later Dharma-shastras are nearly pure legal
textbooks. The Manusmrti is considered superior to the other Dharma-shastras. From
<https://prepp.in/news/e-492-dharmashastras-ancient-india-history-notes>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthashastra, |
Kautilya
was the Prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya. Chandragupta founded the
Mauryan Empire with his help. Arthashastra was written by him. It is the most
important source for writing the history of the Mauryans and is divided into
15 adhikarnas or sections and 180 Prakaranas or subdivisions. It has about
6,000 slokas. The
book was discovered by Shamasastri in 1909 and ably translated by him. It is
a treatise on statecraft and public administration. Despite the controversy
over its date and authorship, its importance lies in the fact that it gives a
clear and methodological analysis of the economic and political conditions of
the Mauryan period. The similarities between the administrative terms used in
the Arthashastra and in the Asokan edicts certainly suggest that the Mauryan
rulers were acquainted with this work. As such his Arthashastra provides
useful and reliable information regarding the social and political conditions
as well as the Mauryan administration. Ideal King as per the Arthashastra Kautilya
suggests that the king should be an autocrat and he should concentrate all
powers into his own hands. He should enjoy unrestricted authority over his
realm. But at the same time, he should give honor to the Brahmana and seek
advice from his ministers. Thus the king though autocrat should exercise his
authority wisely. He should be cultured and wise. He should also be well-read
so as to understand all the details of his administration. He says that the
chief cause of his fall is that the king is inclined towards evil. He
lists six evils that led to a king’s decline. They are haughtiness, lust,
anger, greed, vanity, and love of pleasures. Kautilya says that the king
should live in comfort but he should not indulge in pleasures. Script
of Arthashastra Ideals of Kingship as per Kautilya’s Arthashastra The
major ideal of kingship according to Kautilya is that his own well-being lies
in the well-being of his people of only the happy subjects ensure the
happiness of their sovereign. He also says that the king should be
‘Chakravarti’ or the conqueror of different realms and should win glory by
conquering other lands. He
should protect his people from external dangers and ensure internal peace.
Kautilya maintained that the soldiers should be imbued with the spirit of
‘holy war’ before they march to the battlefield. According to him, all is
fair in a war waged in the interest of the country. About the Ministers as per Kautilya’s
Arthashastra Kautilya
maintains that the king should appoint ministers. A king without ministers is
like a one-wheeled chariot. According to Kautilya, the king’s ministers
should be wise and intelligent. But the king should not become a puppet in
their hands. He
should discard their improper advice. The ministers should work together as;
a team. They should hold meetings in privacy. He says that the king who
cannot keep his secrets cannot last long. Provincial Administration as per Kautilya’s
Arthashastra Kautilya
tells us that the kingdom was divided into several provinces governed by the
members of the royal family. There were some smaller provinces as Saurashtra
and Kambhoj etc. administered by other officers called ‘Rashtriya’. The
provinces were divided into districts that were again sub-divided into
villages. The chief administrator of the district was called the ‘Sthanik
while the village headman was called the ‘Gopa’. Civic Administration as per Kautilya’s
Arthashastra The
administration of big cities as well as the capital city of Patliputra was
carried on very efficiently. Patliputra was divided into four sectors. The
officer-in-charge of each sector was called the ‘Sthanik. He was assisted by
junior officers called the ‘Gopas’ who looked after the welfare of 10 to 40
families. The whole city was in the charge of another officer called the
‘Nagrika’. There was a system of the regular census. Spy Organization as per Kautilya’s Arthashastra Kautilya
says that the king should maintain a network of spies who should keep him
well informed about the minute details and happenings in the country, the
provinces, the districts, and the towns. The spies should keep watch on other
officials. There should be spies to ensure peace in the land. According
to Kautilya, women spies are more efficient than men, so they should, in
particular, be recruited as spies. Above all the kings should send his agents
to neighboring countries to gather information on political significance. Shipping as per Kautilya’s Arthashastra Significant
information that we gather from Kautilya is about shipping under the Mauryans.
Each port was supervised by an officer who kept vigil on ships and ferries.
Tolls were levied on traders, passengers, and fishermen. Almost all ships and
boats were owned by the kings. Economic Condition as per Kautilya’s Arthashastra Kautilya
says that poverty is a major cause of rebellions. Hence there should be no
shortage of food and money to buy it, as it creates discontent and destroys
the king. Kautilya, therefore, advises the king to take steps to improve the
economic condition of his people. Kautilya says that the chief source of
income was the land revenue in villages while the tax on the sale of goods
was the chief source in the cities. Laws
were derived from four sources, dharma (scared law), vyavhara (evidence),
charita (history and custom), and rajasasana (edicts of the King). Kautilya
recommended that any matter of dispute shall be judged according to four
bases of justice. These in order of increasing importance are: 1.
- 'Dharma', which
is based on truth 2.
- 'Evidence', which
is based on witnesses 3.
- 'Custom', i.e.
tradition accepted by the people 4.- 'Royal Edicts', i.e. law as promulgated. If
there is conflict among the various laws, dharma was supreme. The ordering of
the other laws was case specific. Rajasasana ordered the relationship between
the three major social groupings, the citizen, the association, and the
state. The constitutional rules at the state level were specified in the
rajasasana but the constitutional rules at the level of the association were
to be decided by the members of the association. The mutual choice and the
operational level rules of the association were also decided by the members
of the association though the state did promulgate laws to safeguard the
individual member from the oppression of the majority in the association.
Arthashastra sketches a system of civil, criminal, and mercantile law (now it
is called business laws). Foreign
Trade: Foreign
trade is vital element of any economic system. Kautilya accepted that foreign
trade in goods and services is a major source for snowballing the state
wealth. He ascribed that foreign trade should be stimulated by providing some
incentives such as exemption from taxes so that foreign traders to make a
profit. He gave huge importance to imports. He further spoke that foreign
trade is supportive to increase the supply of those goods which may not be
available domestically. Through imports, a state can obtain goods more
cheaply from foreign sources. In this way, he framed a comparative advantage
view of foreign trade. He said that it is beneficial for the different
kingdoms when the product being imported are cheaper than those can be
obtained domestically. He accepted that trade based on the principal of
comparative advantage would be beneficial for both exporting and importing
nations. Trade is an important source of revenue for the Treasury. The
Arthashastra favours foreign trade and urges the king to take part in it
through his overseer of trade. He should encourage the import of goods
produced in foreign countries by permitting concessions. And those to bring
such products in ships. He should grant exemption from taxes that would
enable them to make a profit. And no lawsuit in money matters should be
allowed against foreign trades except such as members of local guilds and
their associates (Tom Trautmann, 2016). Thus the import of goods is treated
as desirable practice. But at the same time exporting should be permitted for
those goods that are abundant in quantity (Tom Trautmann, 2016). Kautilya
supports the use of tariffs, both export and import duties. Kautilya backed
attracting foreigners who possess good technical knowledge. He Supports the
use of tariffs, both import and export duties. He suggested heavy taxation on
those foreign goods which are items of luxuries and on the other hand on the
articles of common consumption light duties were imposed. Any item which is
highly beneficial for the country should be free from any import duties. He
was the first person to discuss the passport is necessary to cross the boundaries. Taxation: Jha
and Jha(1997) indicated that "Chankya paid supreme importance to the
maintenance of a rich treasury, which positively affected entire activities
of the administration." He focused on good fiscal management and the
ways to development of all the sectors of the economy. According to him,
public revenue does not exist for the desire of the king but as a fund to be
utilised to augment the wealth of nations. He confessed the taxation is the
main source of revenue. The power of taxing of the state is boundless but
taxation should not be excessive. He supported that tax base should be
increased not the tax rate. He commented the excessive burden of tax on
people. Kautilya stated that King must collect taxes like honey bee, enough
to sustain but not too much to destroy." Kautilya
indirectly suggests a linear income tax. He highlights fairness, stability of
tax structure, fiscal federalism, avoidance of heavy taxation, ensuring of
tax compliance and subsidies to encourage capital formation. He advocated
limiting the taxation power of the State, having low rates of taxation,
maintaining a gradual increase in taxation and most importantly devising a
tax structure that ensured compliance many postulates of Kautilya's
philosophy of political economy are applicable to modern times. Preferably,
the government should collect taxes and do welfare of people. Kautilya's
system of taxation involved the elements of sacrifice by the taxpayer, direct
benefit to the taxpayers, redistribution of income, and tax incentives for
desired investments. He suggested tax holiday as an incentive which means if
any one brings new land under cultivation, he should be relieved from
agricultural tax for at least two years. He advocates a mixed economy and
argued for a very active role of government. His conversation on taxation
gave an idea of three principles that include, taxation power is limited,
taxation should not be heavy and excessive and tax increase should be
reasonable. He recommended a system of tax collection and public expenditure
of revenue in such a way as to build up the permanent revenue yielding
capacity of the economy. He stated that tax base should be increased not the
tax rate. The functional relationship which conversed kautilya in Arthsashtra
between the rate of income tax and the magnitude of tax revenue is now said
in terms of Laffer curve. He
encouraged indirect taxes such as excise and custom duties and direct taxes
as income tax on individuals, wealth tax, and profession tax. He also
promoted land revenue, water tax and toll, fine and penalties. According to
him, tax receipts can be divided into three parts; income earned through
taxes on goods produced within a country, Income earned through taxes on
goods produced in the capital and income earned through taxes on imports and
exports. He supported that wealthy people should pay higher tax according to
their paying capacity. In this way, he considers the ability to pay approach.
Tax should be levied one in a year. Growth
Oriented Public Expenditure: Kautilya
supported that most of the revenue generated from taxation should be spent on
creative activities and public welfare. He argued different items where state
should incur expenditure such as on national defence, public administration
and salaries of the ministers, government departments, maintenance of
national store house and granaries, maintenance of armies and on the
acquisition of valuable gems, stones and ornaments and whatever was left
should be deposited to the treasury. In
Arthashastra, it is elucidated that law was not viewed just as code of
prohibition, nor was it limited to corrective justice of law courts. Its
range was wider than ethics itself and institutions were creation of law
while traditions and customs rested on its sanctions. All philosophies of
society were formed by it and law was blended with religion, with morality
and with public opinion and by its subtle operations subjected the society to
its will. The role of law in the society was to bring a just order in society
and the remarkable task was to be carried by the King along with his
assistants. Kautilya
indicated in his famous verse: "In
the happiness of his subjects lies the King's happiness; In
their welfare his welfare. He
shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but, Treat
as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects". The
Arthaśaūstra treatise elaborated that writer is slightly concerned with
ethical considerations. Political expedience had been a characteristic of the
Arthasastra tradition, and in such works as the Santi Parvan right is likened
with might in a world in which the stronger live upon the weaker. Kautilya
generally recommends unprincipled tactics only against those who would
undermine the social order, and he is aware of that power, if not restrained
in its use, can be unhelpful of itself. The writer of the Arthasastra was
sensitive to the economic bases of power and opposed any distributing
tendency that would wane the control of the state over the economic life of
society. Yet the state should not seek to eradicate the independent group
life of the community. The caste structure was recognized as long as the
general well-being was not prejudiced by narrow class rights. The Arthasastra
signifies an important step in the direction of authority based on the
interests of all. The king was recommended to see no interest other than the
interest of his subjects. However, Kautilya clarified that affluence rests on
the good will of the people and that the power of the state depends on
wealth. This idea of authority must necessarily include many functions
formerly reserved to institutions that were not considered political. The
Nutisaura of Kamandaka, usually retained in the Gupta period (fourth or fifth
century a.d.), is basically an synopsis of the Arthasaustra, although the
later writer disregards a number of subjects that Kautilya clearly believed
of great importance. Two-thirds of the Kamandaklya Nitisara relates to
foreign policy and the conduct of conflicts. All the literature that has been
considered far was shaped in northern India, and, except for Buddhist
writings, in Sanskrit. Several Jaina texts can be categorized among the
Arthasaustra literatures. A
Western Perspective on Kautilya's Arthashastra: However,
the influence of Kautilya to economy has been ignored by western researchers
despite the fact that his coverage of this subject was perhaps the most
sophisticated and broadly based on internationally until Adam Smith published
his Wealth of Nations in 1776. The
influential treatise, Arthashastra discovers issues of social welfare, the
collective ethics that hold a society together, counselling the king that in
times and in areas distressed by famine, epidemic and such acts of nature, or
by war, he should initiate public projects such as building irrigation
projects, building forts around major strategic holdings and towns, and
exempt taxes on those affected. The text was powerful on other Hindu texts
that followed, such as the sections on king, governance and legal procedures
included in Manusmriti. The Arthashastra was written at the end of the fourth
century BC, it seems to have been revived only in1905, after centuries of
oblivion. The dissertation in its present shape is most likely not the text
written by Kautilya, though it is perhaps based on a text that was authored
by Kautilya; and is no case can the text in its completely be credited to
Kautilya on account of numerous stylistic linguistic distinctions. Relevance
of Arthsashtra in modern time: Kautilya
is one of the most renowned Indian political philosophers. Though, he lived a
long time ago, certain philosophies from his theory are still applicable in
modern political framework. The book, written in Sanskrit elucidates theories
and principles of governing a state. Kautilya established an extremely vital
imperative: governance, polity, politics, and progress have to be linked to
the welfare of the people. When assessing the some economic ideas of
kautilya, it can be understood that even the terminology employed in
Arthsashtra may have changed but the nature and role of state in the economic
system seem persistent in all settings. Covering various topics on
administration, politics and economy, it is a book of law and a treatise on
running a country, which is pertinent even today. His philosophies remain
prevalent today in India. He
offered cherished basis for economic science. It comprises of very useful
economic ideas on foreign trade, taxation, public expenditure, agriculture
and industry. Good governance and stability are inseparably linked. If rulers
are responsive, accountable, removable, recallable, there is stability. If
not, there is uncertainty. This is even more applicable in the present
democratic system. He recommended that heavy taxation should be avoided. If
tax rates are high, public will not be willing to pay the tax and discover
the ways of tax evasion. Low rate of taxation will produce more revenue to
the state. He
was well mindful that terms of trade were not just depending on economics but
also on various factors. There is no autonomous mechanism that will ensure
that a nation would benefit from trade in the absence of certain precautions
and policy measures. Social welfare is the main focal point of kautilya‟s economic notions. The State was required to
help the poor and helpless and to be proactive in contributing to the welfare
of its citizens. Kautilya gave more emphasis to human capital formation that
is relevant in current times because development is not possible without
human capital growth. Besides these ideas, there are a number of things in
Arthsashtra which is very significant such as conservation of natural
resources. Arthsashtra provides much basic knowledge about economics, and
several of his ideas are still important in today's economic system. To
summarize, Arthashastra is an exceptional test in all of Indian literature
because of its total absence of erroneous reasoning, or its blatant support
of realpolitik, and scholars continued to study it for its clear cut
arguments and formal style till the twelfth century. The Arthashastra
provides broad coverage on the overall economy, which includes:
infrastructure (roadwork, irrigation, forestry, and fortification), weights
and measurements, labour and employment, commerce and trade, commodities and
agriculture, land use and property laws, money and coinage, interest rates
and loan markets, tariffs and taxes, and government expenditures and the
treasury. It is noteworthy that a book such as 'Arthashastra' should have
been written more than 2000 years ago in northern India. It is a book of
substantial size. It includes economics, political science, public
administration, low and statecraft. It is projected to provide practical
advice for the management of the state and thereby enhance the wealth of the
nation. Especially,
Arthashastra is a discourse on political economy interpreted in its broadest
sense. It was written somewhere between 321 and 286 BC. A Modern of
Aristotle, Kautilya, a Brahmin, played a governing role in the formation and
functioning of Maurya Empire. Afterward under his leadership, growth with
stability was conquered in the empire with the help of strong administration
and efficient monetary management. His accomplishment in the domain of
scholarship is certainly creditable. The 'Arthashastra' consists of detailed
analysis of different aspects of ancient Indian economy." Intelligence
and the liberal use of stimulating agents is suggested on a large scale,
Kautilya remorsefully acknowledges that it is not easy to identify an
official's deceit. Kautilya has delivered a comprehensive and explanatory
description of the duties, responsibilities and role of the king, prince(s),
ministers, and other state officials. As for the state's political
administration, Kautilya provided a complete commentary as to how this should
be effectively undertaken. He gave instructions about the defence of the
state's limits, protection of the forts, and the manner in which the attack
by the rival must be controlled. The Arthashastra categorizes legal matters
into civil and criminal and it stipulates extravagant strategies for
administering justice in terms of evidence, procedures and witnesses. It can
be said that Kautilya‟s Arthshastra offers valuable
foundation for economy. It consists of valuable insights about finances. It
can be used to glen of significance to modern time and can be useful to
exemplify several contemporary economic thoughts. He offered a set of
different economic policy measures to encourage economic development. From
<https://iascurrent.com/ancient-history/mahajanpadas/arthashastra/>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buddhist Traditions; |
Buddhism and Politics The
Buddha had gone beyond all worldly affairs, but still gave advice on good
government. The Buddha came from a
warrior caste and was naturally brought into association with kings, princes
and ministers. Despite His origin and association, He never resorted to the
influence of political power to introduce His teaching, nor allowed His
Teaching to be misused for gaining political power. But today, many
politicians try to drag the Buddha's name into politics by introducing Him as
a communist, capitalist, or even an imperialist. They have forgotten that the
new political philosophy as we know it really developed in the West long
after the Buddha's time. Those who try to make use of the good name of the
Buddha for their own personal advantage must remember that the Buddha was the
Supremely Enlightened One who had gone beyond all worldly concerns. There is an inherent problem of trying to
intermingle religion with politics. The basis of religion is morality, purity
and faith, while that for politics is power. In the course of history,
religion has often been used to give legitimacy to those in power and their
exercise of that power. Religion was used to justify wars and conquests,
persecutions, atrocities, rebellions, destruction of works of art and
culture. When religion is used to pander to political
whims, it has to forego its high moral ideals and become debased by worldly
political demands. The thrust of the Buddha Dhamma is not directed
to the creation of new political institutions and establishing political
arrangements. Basically, it seeks to approach the problems of society by
reforming the individuals constituting that society and by suggesting some
general principles through which the society can be guided towards greater
humanism, improved welfare of its members, and more equitable sharing of
resources. There is a limit to the
extent to which a political system can safeguard the happiness and prosperity
of its people. No political system, no matter how ideal it may appear to be,
can bring about peace and happiness as long as the people in the system are
dominated by greed, hatred and delusion. In addition, no matter what
political system is adopted, there are certain universal factors which the
members of that society will have to experience: the effects of good and bad
kamma, the lack of real satisfaction or everlasting happiness in the world
characterized by dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (egolessness). To the
Buddhist, nowhere in Samsara is there real freedom, not even in the heavens
or the world of Brahama. Although a good and just political system which
guarantees basic human rights and contains checks and balances to the use of
power is an important condition for a happy in society, people should not
fritter away their time by endlessly searching for the ultimate political
system where men can be completely free, because complete freedom cannot be
found in any system but only in minds which are free. To be free, people will
have to look within their own minds and work towards freeing themselves from
the chains of ignorance and craving. Freedom in the truest sense is only
possible when a person uses Dhamma to develop his character through good
speech and action and to train his mind so as to expand his mental potential
and achieve his ultimate aim of enlightenment. While recognizing the
usefulness of separating religion from politics and the limitations of
political systems in bringing about peace and happiness, there are several
aspects of the Buddha's teaching which have close correspondence to
the political arrangements of the present day. Firstly, the Buddha spoke
about the equality of all human beings long before Abraham Lincoln, and that
classes and castes are artificial barriers erected by society. The only
classification of human beings, according to the Buddha, is based on the
quality of their moral conduct. Secondly, the Buddha encouraged the spirit of
social -co-operation and active participation in society. This spirit is
actively promoted in the political process of modern societies. Thirdly,
since no one was appointed as the Buddha's successor, the members of the
Order were to be guided by the Dhamma and Vinaya, or in short, the Rule of
Law. Until today very member of the Sangha is to abide by the Rule of Law
which governs and guides their conduct. Fourthly, the Buddha encouraged the spirit of
consultation and the democratic process. This is shown within the community
of the Order in which all members have the right to decide on matters of
general concern. When a serious question arose demanding attention, the
issues were put before the monks and discussed in a manner similar to the
democratic parliamentary system used today. This self-governing procedure may
come as a surprise to many to learn that in the assemblies of Buddhists in India
2,500 years and more ago are to be found the rudiments of the parliamentary
practice of the present day. A special officer similar to 'Mr. Speaker' was
appointed to preserve the dignity of the Parliamentary Chief Whip, was also
appointed to see if the quorum was secured. Matters were put forward in the
form of a motion which was open to discussion. In some cases it was done
once, in others three times, thus anticipating the practice of Parliament in
requiring that a bill be read a third time before it becomes law. If the
discussion showed a difference of opinion, it was to be settled by the vote
of the majority through balloting. The Buddhist approach to
political power is the moralization and the responsible use of public power.
The Buddha preached non-violence and peace as a universal message. He did not
approve of violence or the destruction of life, and declared that there is no
such thing as a 'just' war. He taught: 'The victor breeds hatred, the
defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy
and peaceful.' Not only did the Buddha teach non-violence and peace, He was
perhaps the first and only religious teacher who went to the battlefield
personally to prevent the outbreak of a war. He diffused tension between the
Sakyas and the Koliyas who were about to wage war over the waters of Rohini.
He also dissuaded King Ajatasattu from attacking the Kingdom of the Vajjis. The Buddha discussed the importance and the
prerequisites of a good government. He showed how the country could become
corrupt, degenerate and unhappy when the head of the government becomes
corrupt and unjust. He spoke against corruption and how a government should
act based on humanitarian principles. The Buddha once said,
'When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just and
good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just
and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file
become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people
become just and good.'(Anguttara Nikaya) In the Cakkavatti Sihananda
Sutta, the Buddha
said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred,
cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and governments may try to suppress
crime through punishment, but it is futile to eradicate crimes through force. In the Kutadanta Sutta, the Buddha suggested
economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should
use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the
country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide
financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for
workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity. In the Jataka, the Buddha had given to
rules for Good Government, known as 'Dasa Raja Dharma'. These ten rules can be
applied even today by any government which wishes to rule the country
peacefully. The rules are as follows: 1)
be liberal and avoid selfishness, 2)
maintain a high moral character, 3) be prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the
well-being of the subjects, 4)
be honest and maintain absolute integrity, 5)
be kind and gentle, 6)
lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate, 7)
be free from hatred of any kind, 8)
exercise non-violence, 9)
practise patience, and 10)
respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony. Regarding the behavior of rulers, He further
advised: -
A good ruler should act impartially and should not be biased and discriminate
between one particular group of subjects against another. -
A good ruler should not harbor any form of hatred against any of his
subjects. -
A good ruler should show no fear whatsoever in the enforcement of the law, if
it is justifiable. - A good ruler must possess a clear understanding
of the law to be enforced. It should not be enforced just because the ruler
has the authority to enforce the law. It must be done in a reasonable manner
and with common sense. -- (Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta) In the Milinda Panha,it is stated: 'If a man,
who is unfit, incompetent, immoral, improper, unable and unworthy of
kingship, has enthroned himself a king or a ruler with great authority, he is
subject to be tortured‚ to be subject to a variety of punishment by the
people, because, being unfit and unworthy, he has placed himself
unrighteously in the seat of sovereignty. The ruler, like others who violate
and transgress moral codes and basic rules of all social laws of mankind, is
equally subject to punishment; and moreover, to be censured is the ruler who
conducts himself as a robber of the public.' In a Jataka story, it is
mentioned that a ruler who punishes innocent people and does not punish the
culprit is not suitable to rule a country. The king always improves
himself and carefully examines his own conduct in deeds, words and thoughts,
trying to discover and listen to public opinion as to whether or not he had
been guilty of any faults and mistakes in ruling the kingdom. If it is found
that he rules unrighteously, the public will complain that they are ruined by
the wicked ruler with unjust treatment, punishment, taxation, or other
oppressions including corruption of any kind, and they will react against him
in one way or another. On the contrary, if he rules righteously they will
bless him: 'Long live His Majesty.' (Majjhima Nikaya) The Buddha'semphasis on the moral
duty of a ruler to use public power to improve the welfare of the people had
inspired Emperor Asoka in the Third Century B.C. to do likewise. Emperor
Asoka, a sparkling example of this principle, resolved to live according to
and preach the Dhamma and to serve his subjects and all humanity. He declared
his non-aggressive intentions to his neighbors, assuring them of his goodwill
and sending envoys to distant kings bearing his message of peace and
non-aggression. He promoted the energetic practice of the socio-moral virtues
of honesty, truthfulness, compassion, benevolence, non-violence, considerate
behavior towards all, non-extravagance, non-acquisitiveness, and non-injury
to animals. He encouraged religious freedom and mutual respect for each
other's creed. He went on periodic tours preaching the Dhamma to the rural
people. He undertook works of public utility, such as founding of hospitals
for men and animals, supplying of medicine, planting of roadside trees and
groves, digging of wells, and construction of watering sheds and rest houses.
He expressly forbade cruelty to animals. Sometimes the Buddha is
said to be a social reformer. Among other things, He condemned the caste
system, recognized the equality of people, spoke on the need to improve
socio-economic conditions, recognized the importance of a more equitable
distribution of wealth among the rich and the poor, raised the status of women,
recommended the incorporation of humanism in government and administration,
and taught that a society should not be run by greed but with consideration
and compassion for the people. Despite all these, His contribution to mankind
is much greater because He took off at a point which no other social reformer
before or ever since had done, that is, by going to the deepest roots of
human ill which are found in the human mind. It is only in the human mind
that true reform can be effected. Reforms imposed by force upon the external
world have a very short life because they have no roots. But those reforms
which spring as a result of the transformation of man's inner consciousness
remain rooted. While their branches spread outwards, they draw their
nourishment from an unfailing source -- the subconscious imperatives of the
life-stream itself. So reforms come about when men's minds have prepared
the way for them, and they live as long as men revitalize them out of their
own love of truth, justice and their fellow men. The doctrine preached by
the Buddha is not one based on 'Political Philosophy'. Nor is it a doctrine
that encourages men to worldly pleasures. It sets out a way to attain
Nibbana. In other words, its ultimate aim is to put an end to craving (Tanha) that keeps them in
bondage to this world. A stanza from the Dhammapada best summarizes this
statement: 'The path that leads to worldly gain is one, and the path that
leads to Nibbana(by leading a religious life)is another.' However, this does not mean that Buddhists cannot
or should not get involved in the political process, which is a social
reality. The lives of the members of a society are shaped by laws and
regulations, economic arrangements allowed within a country, institutional
arrangements, which are influenced by the political arrangements of that
society. Nevertheless, if a Buddhist wishes to be involved in politics, he
should not misuse religion to gain political powers, nor is it advisable for
those who have renounced the worldly life to lead a pure, religious life to
be actively involved in politics. From <https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/229.htm>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, |
Context: 204th birth anniversary
of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was recently
observed.
Who was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan? Sir syed Ahmed khan was a teacher,
politician,social reformer etc. He was also the founder of Aligarh muslim university.
Why has he been controversial? Sir syed Ahmed khan has
often been criticised as the father of Two nation theory which led to the
formation of two seperate nations i.e. India and Pakistan.
Was “two-nation” theory in existence during his
times? “Nationalism” as a consciously-held idea was a
20th century phenomenon even in Europe, from where it was imported to India. Eminent historian Anil
Seal has rightly pointed out that during Sir Syed’s times, “there were no two
nations, there was not even one nation, there was no nation at all.”
Sir Syed’s concept of nation:
Rationale behind the Establishment of Aligarh
Muslim University: The main reason behind the establishment of this
institution was the wretched dependence of the Muslims. Their religious
fanaticism did not let them avail the educational facilities provided by the
government schools and colleges. It was, therefore, deemed necessary to make
some special arrangement for their education.
Political Thought : Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan introduction All Indians, regardless of
their religious affiliation, became aware of their country's identity
as a result of British colonial rule's impact on Indian society. The
political, social, and religious spheres all played a role in expressing
nationalistic sentiments. Humanity as a whole, but their respective
communities in particular, became more aware thanks to enlightened members of
the Hindu and Muslim faiths. Several social, religious, cultural, and political
movements and organisations emerged in India in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. The leaders of the Hindu and Muslim communities were primarily
responsible for these movements. Indian society
was shaped by the likes of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and Abdul Kalam Azad significantly. These political leaders
developed their political thinking on the relationship between religion and politics, democracy and individual rights. So much for sovereignty and
nationalism. Since the beginning, Islam has been the place where
they've expressed their opinions. The only problem is that they
didn't make anything new in terms of political thought. THE HONORABLE SYED AHMED KHAN Aligarh Activists The Aligarh movement was
started by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in Delhi, India. Muslims in India were
encouraged to take an interest in politics and modern education through
this campaign. Muslims' first national awakening was expressed in this
movement. Maulvi Nazir Ahmed and Maulvi Shib-i-Numami were among the many capable
individuals who helped him move about. When the
Aligarh movement first began, it was referred to as such. The Mohammedan
Anglo-Oriental(MAO) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sri Aurobindo, r/w ignou notes |
Why
in News Recently, the Prime Minister has set up a
53-member committee to mark the 150th birth anniversary of spiritual leader Sri Aurobindo on 15th August 2022. Key
Points
Political
Ideas of Aurobindo Ghosh! A
majority of modern Indian political philosophers were against the principle
of greatest good of the greatest number propounded by Jeremy Bentham, the
greatest of all utilitarian thinkers. The Indian philosophers reject the
morals of Bentham because, according to them, the principles are artificial
and egoistic and that it neglects the interests of the minorities. As the
ultimate reality is the spiritual being, a man should make attempts in his
personal and political career to realize the good of all the living beings. Instead
of pain and pleasure, as the only criteria, the good of all sentient
creatures should be the ethical standard. This criticism of utilitarianism
is found in Vivekananda, Tilak, Gandhi and Aurobindo Ghosh. Aurobindo was
further critical of modem capitalism. ADVERTISEMENTS: He
was critical about the growing tendencies of centralization, concentration
and the like in modern capitalism. On the other hand, socialism, according to
him, is the growth of omnipotent authoritarian system. Though critical of
socialism, he accepted that the socialist ideals are strong points. He
stated that, the socialist objective of equal opportunities and the guarantee
of a social and economic minimum to all was a very much appreciated objective
for its attempts to create an organized social life. This advocacy of the
socialist ideal is itself an indication of Western political influence on
Aurobindo. Aurobindo
believed in the ideal of inner spiritual freedom. He stated that mechanical
necessity of nature can be eliminated only when man becomes the agent of a
supramental spiritual force. This notion of spiritual freedom can be attained
by cosmic and trans-cosmic consciousness that was found in the ancient
Vedanta. Aurobindo
also believed that when man attains spiritual freedom, he would naturally
gain political and social freedom as well. According to Aurobindo, freedom is
obedience to the laws of one’s being and since the real subliminal self of
man is not his surface personality but the supreme divine itself, obedience
to the laws of God and to the laws of one’s real being comes to the same
things. ADVERTISEMENTS: Though
this definition of Aurobindo has a Western influence, he used the law in
terms of Svadhartna or self-law described in Bhagavad Gita. In fact, it was a
trait in Aurobindo that whenever he advocated a Western ideal, he always
transformed it in the light of the Indian spirituality. It
is this style of Aurobindo that made him advocate spiritualized anarchism,
which is a step ahead of philosophical anarchism. Spiritual anarchism
advocates that to release the force of the spiritual inner compulsions that
would be required if governmental coercion is to be removed. One
of the simple remedies to bring about an end to the evolutionary crisis that
resulted in social and political deprivation, despondency, depression and
chaos, according to Aurobindo, was to create Gnostic community. He opined
that a mere economic rationalization and the democratic culture do not
prevent the growth of communal ego. A
communist economic planning and humanism or humanitarianism does not solve
any problem because it is impossible to build a perfect society as men are
not perfect. He opined that though religion asserts the spiritual nature of man,
it cannot succeed in achieving a dynamic transformation of the collectivity,
because in the course of its institutional evolution it becomes creedal,
formalistic and even dogmatic. Hence, according to Aurobindo, the ideal of a
spiritualized society that aims to provide a simply rich and beautiful life
to all is dependent on the spiritual sources of governance. ADVERTISEMENTS: Aurobindo
was not satisfied with the idea of a spiritualized society. He wanted a
divine super mind, which is aware of the world and also the creator of the
world. He opined that men must evolve beyond the supermind eventually leading
to the emergence of a new race of beings. This idea of superman as conceived
by Aurobindo was derived from Nietzsche’s idea of Ubermensch, and gave it a
Vedantic and spiritual character. This
yogic superman would be governed by principles like hedonism, historicism and
pragmatism. He would also be kind, altruistic, compassionate and
transcendentally oriented. Just as Nietzsche spoke about transvaluation of
all value, Aurobindo spoke about consciousness and the growth of the absolute
divine values. He
believed that social and political discords, conflicts, contradictions,
struggles could be eliminated only when the growth of an
identity-consciousness in the spirit that would lead to mutuality, harmony
and unity. Aurobindo, thus, championed the transcendental spiritual worth of
the human beings. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gandhi |
What
is Gandhian ideology?
Major
Gandhian Ideologies
Relevance
in Today’s Context
In
my life, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he
embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary
people come together to do extraordinary things." -Barack Obama Conclusion
From
<https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper4/gandhian-ideologies>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
M. K. Gandhi, |
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948). An Indian
spiritual and political leader (called Mahatma, 'Great Soul), Gandhi
campaigned tirelessly for Indian independence, which was finally achieved in
1947. His ethic of non violent resistance, satyagraha, reinforced by his
ascetic lifestyle, gave the movement for Indian independence enormous moral
authority. Derived from Hinduism, Gandhi's political philosophy was based on the
assumption that the universe is regulated by the primacy of truth, or satya,
and that humankind is 'ultimately one'. Gandhi was a trenchant opponent of both Hindu and Muslim
sectarianism. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
B. R. Ambedkar, |
Introduction
Main
Architect of Indian Constitution
Constitutional
Morality
Democracy
Social
Reforms
Factsheet
Methods
Adopted to Remove Untouchability
Relevance
of Ambedkar in Present Times
Conclusion
From
<https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/indian-political-thinker-br-ambedkar>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
M. N. Roy. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plato,
Plato
characterises human behaviour in three main sources:
|
Justice: the
virtue of state In
his idea of justice, Plato identifies virtues that suit each social class.
The
first three virtues belong to the respective three social classes, but the
fourth virtue is a manifestation of harmony between all the three classes.
These four virtues are also referred to as the four Cardinal Virtues
of Plato's theory of Justice. Philosopher-Kings: the cornerstone of Plato's theory of
Justice Plato
is known for his unique concept of the philosopher-kings put forward in his
political thought. He prescribed that the reins of government should remain
with a very small class of philosopher-kings who represent REASON. According
to 'The story of Philosophy' by Will Durant, "the industrial forces
would produce, but they would not rule, the military forces would protest,
but they would not rule, the forces of knowledge and science and philosophy
would be nourished and protected, and they would rule". Conclusion Plato's
theory of Justice is famously known as the Architectonic Theory of
Justice. He explains that as during the construction of a building, each
part is assigned to different artisans, but the architect combines it to
contribute to the final outlay of the building and add to its splendour.
Similarly, the three cardinal virtues, namely Temperance, Courage, and
Wisdom, would be cultivated by Traders, Soldiers and Philosopher class,
respectively, and Justice, the fourth virtue, would act as the architect
establishing a perfect state. Due to this inference between architecture and
the organisation of society, his theory is also called the Architectonic
Theory of Justice. From
<https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/platos-theory-of-justice>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aristotle, |
Aristotle:
Father of Political Science The
first man to distinguish between various branches of knowledge had been
Aristotle. He differentiated between meteorology, poetics, logic, biology,
ethics, natural history, aesthetics, physics, rhetoric, metaphysics and even
wrote extensively on these subjects. He
did not only lay the foundation stone of political science but also
contributed significantly to its elaboration as well. "Politics",
"Ethics", and "Rhetoric" are few among many of
his works that hold discussions on questions of law, equality, justice, etc. According
to Aristotle, political science is a master science. He gives credit to
political science as a master-art because, unlike other sciences that serve
as a means to an end, political science pertains to the ends of human
existence in itself. Aristotle, thus viewed political science as the end to
human existence rather than as a means to it. In
his book, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes, "The supreme
good... must be the object of the most authoritative of the sciences - some
science which is a master craft. But such is manifestly the science of
politics, for it is this that ordains which of the sciences are to exist in
states, and what branches of knowledge the different classes of citizens are
to learn, and up to what point." His
view demonstrates that political science dominates all other sciences. It
explains his "Hierarchy of Ends", implying that each
branch of knowledge is merely a means and would ultimately serve the end of
leading a good life. Note here that Greek philosophers and their view of
politics share one common notion. They believe that the state comes into
existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life.
Aristotle doesn't differ on this notion and is hence considered to view the
science of politics as supreme to other sciences. Aristotle
and his view on State Aristotle
views the state as natural. According to him, the state is a necessary
condition for all humans. Like Plato, he doesn't differentiate between state
or society and, in a similar fashion, considers it to be essential for a good
life. Thus, in his view, the State is a necessary condition of a good
life. Any
human being cannot survive in isolation, and thus, a man and a woman
establish a household. A village is formed when a family expands itself, and
when many such villages are formed, a state comes into existence. As and when
a state is formed and society is organised, human beings can meet their
needs. It
is for the same reason that the state's existence is as important and natural
as the presence of a family or village. However, most human associations are
flawed and help to fulfil one or a few facets of the good life, but that's
untrue for a state. He viewed the state as being able to meet the whole or
all facets of a good life. It
is important to understand why he perceived the state as natural for humans.
According to him, there is no difference between an animal or a human being,
other than the fact that a human being has the desire and a sense of living a
good life. What it means is that human beings become different from animals
only if they exist in a state. It is the same desire to lead a good life that
makes the formation of a state a natural thing to occur. Aristotle
and his view on Man Aristotle
believes that Man is a political animal. This analogy is
intriguing because it does not only consider man to be a social animal but
also interprets him as a political being. Aristotle uses the same concept of
the good life to justify his consideration of a man as a political being. He
asserts that all kinds of living beings happen to exist in groups, and thus,
they can be understood as social animals. However, it is solely the quality
of human beings to aspire for a good and qualitative life. For
human beings, satisfaction doesn't cease at survival; the constant aspiration
to lead a good life makes them political beings by default. He says, "he
who does not live in a state or who does not need a state is either a beast
or a god". State
and its relation with Man Aristotle
is known for his dictum that State is prior to man.
Chronologically, it is a man who appears before the state. Still, since it is
the state that makes human beings capable of completing their needs and
fulfilling the objective of a good life, the state is given priority over the
man. To
understand how the state is before man, O.P Gauba uses the example of whole
and part. A leg or a hand is a part of the body, but a leg or a hand without
a body is useless; an individual without a state is incomplete, and it is the
state that makes him whole. Aristotle
draws a relation between organ and organism. Each organ of a living being
performs a specific function; each individual performs different
responsibilities in society. The body consists of different organs performing
varied functions, and the body ensures harmony in its functioning. Similarly,
the state ensures the communion of various individuals, where the division of
labour ensures cooperation and harmony in society. Aristotle
and his classification of governments and constitutions The
father of the science of politics owes the title to his name because he
employed empirical inquiry as to his method. Aristotle was troubled by the
instability that existed in Greek city-states' governments. He studied over
158 case histories of various city-states by sending his students to prepare
case studies of various constitutions. He analysed almost 160 case histories.
To be precise, it is believed that he analysed 158 case histories. The
case history of Athens is an important source to understand his
classification of the constitutions. One can understand this fact based on
two factors: 1.
The
number of individuals ruling the state: whether
it is one person ruling the state, a few individuals or if it is a rule of
many. 2.
The
intent of the ruler or rulers: whether
the ruler is ruling for his state's interest (known as a normal form of
government), or whether the ruler is looking after his self-interest (known
as a perverted form of government).
(Source:
politicalsciencereview.com)
According
to Aristotle, without any adequate checks on a ruler's power, no form of
government would be stable. He believes that power and virtue cannot
coexist. He
has provided the cycle of change of governments over time. Kingship, a normal
form of government, turns to tyranny when there is an absence of control over
the monarch's power. Tyranny leads to a rebellion or a revolution by a few
individuals who establish an aristocracy. Aristocracy can deteriorate and
turn into an oligarchy, the perverted form. With time, a greater many rebels
against oligarchy and supersede it with polity. Polity further decays in
democracy when the many rulers begin to seek their self-interest. In the end,
a single individual who seems virtuous establishes a monarchy, and the
progression of ideal form and perverted form continues in a circular motion.
Conclusion Aristotle
gave the concept of a mixed constitution as a solution to
prevent instability and establish a lasting form of government in the Greek
city-state. He employed his idea of the "Golden Mean" to
create stability. In his book "Ethics", he explains the Golden Mean
as a middle path, which means that virtue lies between two extremes.
Anything on an extreme end becomes a vice, and each virtue lies in the middle
of the two extremes. For instance, courage is a virtue that lies between the
two extremes of timidity and negligence. His
solution to bring a stable form of government is the combination of rule by
few and rule by many. He discarded Monarchy because it would be corrupt from
absolute power. Aristocracy would suit because few would make the rules. This
would comprise the chosen minority who are educated and rich. However, in
case of no checks on aristocracy, it would deteriorate. To prevent that,
Aristotle suggests that the decisions made by the aristocracy should be
ratified by the ordinary many. He says that "the people, though
individually they may be worse judges than those who have special knowledge,
are collectively as good". Aristotle's
suggestion of a judicious mixture between aristocracy and what is sometimes
referred to as Polity or, at other times Democracy, embodies his belief in
the Golden Mean formula. Hence, the competent, rich and educated would rule,
but the ordinary citizens would check the aristocracy from exceeding their
power by ratifying their decisions. In modern times, Aristotle's formula
is arguably referred to as Constitutional Democracy. From
<https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/aristotles-views-on-state-man-and-government>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Machiavelli, |
"It
is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious and also to be
so, but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be
otherwise, you may be able to change to the opposite qualities... A Prince...
must not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if
constrained". Niccolo
Machiavelli (Discourses on Livy) He
advises the Prince to be both a Fox and a Lion. A fox cannot
defend itself in front of wolves, and a lion cannot defend itself from traps,
but a fox can recognise traps and save itself, and a Lion can scare wolves.
Here, Fox is used to depict cleverness and Lion to portray strength.
Machiavelli suggests that a Prince should be both a Fox and a Lion, in the
sense that he should be aware of the circumstances that require action and
decide to behave accordingly. A lion can be brave but not every crisis can be
solved through bravery. Similarly, a Prince should be both brave (Lion's
Trait) but also know how and when to act cleverly to solve a dilemma (Fox's
trait). Machiavelli
has been called a modern thinker. It was probably because he made his
suggestions on the behaviour of human beings and not on any superficial law.
He has been called the pioneer of ‘Behaviouralism’ by William T. Bluhm in the
book ‘Theories of Political System.’ He does not pay heed to the divine law,
which was the order of the day in Machiavelli's period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hobbes, |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locke, |
An English philosopher and politician, Locke was
a consistent opponent of absolutism and is often portrayed as the philosopher
of the 1688 'Glorious Revolution' (which established a constitutional
monarchy in England). Using social contract theory and accepting that, by
nature, humans are free and equal, Locke upheld constitutionalism, limited government and the right of revolution,
but the stress he placed on property rights prevented him from endorsing political equality or democracy in the
modern sense. Locke's foremost political work is Two Treatises of Government
(1690). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John S. Mill, |
A British philosopher, economist and politician,
Mill's varied and complex work straddles the divide between classical and modern
forms ofliberalism. His opposition to collectivist tendencies and traditions
was firmly rooted in
nineteenth-century principles, but his emphasis on the quality of individual life,
reflected in a commitment to individuality, as well as his sympathy for causes such as female
suffrage and workers' cooperatives,
looked forward to later
developments. Mill's major writings include On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (1861) and
Considerations on Representative Government (1861). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marx, |
A German philosopher,
economist and lifelong
revolutionary, Marx is usually portrayed as the father of twentieth century communism. The
centrepiece of Marx's thought is a
'scientific' critique of capitalism
that highlights, in keeping with previous class society, systemic inequality and
therefore fundamental instability.
Marx's materialist theory of history holds that social development will
inevitably culminate in the establishment of a classless communist society. His
vast works include the Communist
Manifesto (1848) (written with
Friedrich Engels (1820–95) and
the three-volume Capital
(1867, 1885 and 1894). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gramsci, |
An Italian Marxist and
revolutionary, Gramsci tried
to redress the emphasis within orthodox Marxism on economic and material factors. In
his major work, Prison
Notebooks (1929–35), Gramscirejected any form of 'scientific' determinism by stressing,
through the theory of 'hegemony' (the
dominance of bourgeois ideas and
beliefs), the importance of
political and intellectual struggle. While he did not ignore theeconomic
nucleus', he argued that bourgeois assumptions and values needed to be overthrown
by the establishment of a rival
'proletarian hegemony'. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hannah Arendt. |
Hannah Arendt is an important thinker for UPSC
too so there were questions on her theories quite frequently. She is a
foreign thinker and she is a citizen of United States of America but
actually, a German who fled away from Germany in the times of Second World War
as she was a jew where Anti-Semitism was followed by Adolf Hitler. Arendt
have never written any books about all her theories, but her theories can
only be understood by reading all her articles to newspapers, journals etc.
and on summing up the articles we end up with theories on diverse topics like
totalitarianism, revolution, the nature of freedom. Her basic theory is on
separating Private sphere and Public sphere as political life and Politics
from Human Activity. She will ask us to concentrate more on public
sphere because it is more important than private sphere. She further divides
private sphere and mentions biological activity which is cyclic and would
waste most of our time in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Rawl |
A US political
philosopher, Rawls used a form of social contract theory to reconcile liberal
individualism with the principles of
redistribution and social justice. In his major work, A Theory of Justice (1970), he
developed thenotion of 'justice as fairness', based on the belief that behind
a 'veil of ignorance' most people
would acceptthat the liberty of each should be compatible with a like
liberty for all, and that social inequality is only justified if it
works to the benefit of the poorest in society. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Bentham |
Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832) A British philosopher,
legal reformer and founder
of utilitarianism, Bentham developed a moral and philosophical system based on the
belief that human beings are
rationally self-interested creatures, or utility maximizers. Using the principle of general
utility – 'thegreatest happiness for the greatest number' – he advanced a
justification for
laissez-faire economics, constitutional reform and, in later life, political democracy.
Bentham's key works include
A Fragment on Government
(1776) and An Introduction
to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lenin |
Vladimir llich Lenin
(1870-1924) A Russian Marxist
revolutionary andtheorist, Lenin was the first leader of the Soviet state (1917–21).
In What Is to Be Done?
(1902), he emphasized the central importance of a tightly organized 'vanguard' party to lead
and guide the proletarian
class. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), he developed an economic
analysis of colonialism, highlighting
the possibility of turning
world war into class war. The State and Revolution (1917) outlined Lenin's firm commitment
to the 'insurrectionary road'
and rejected 'bourgeois
parliamentarianism'. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rousseau |
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) A Geneva-born French
moral and political philosopher,
Rousseau is commonly viewed as the
architect of political nationalism,
but also influenced liberal, socialist, anarchist and, some claim, fascist thought.
In The Social Contract
(1762), Rousseau argued that 'natural man' could only throw off the corruption, exploitation
and domination imposed by
society and regain the capacity for moral choice through radical form of
democracy, based on the 'general will'. This subordinates the individual to the
collective and promises political liberty and equality for all. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feminist writer |
Mary Wollstonecraft
(1759–97) A British social theorist, Wollstonecraft was a pioneer feminist
thinker, drawn into radical politics by the French Revolution. Her A
Vindication of the Rights of
Woman (1792) stressed the equal rights of women,
especially in education, on
the basis of the notion of 'personhood'. Wollstonecraft's work drew on an Enlightenment
liberal belief in reason,
but developed a more complex analysis of women as the objects and subjects of
desire; it also presented the
domestic sphere as a model of community and social order. |
Comments
Post a Comment