Arthasastra of Kautilya

ARTHASASTRA OF KAUTILYA *

M. S. PRAKASA RAO
Editor, Manpower Journal, New Delhi

Prof. Venkatarangalya’s translation of Kautilya’s Arthasastra, the book under review, amply demonstrates that technical literature on Social Sciences in Telugu has come of age. Doubtless, it makes a significant addition to the growing volume of scientific literature in this language. The translation incidentally proves what a pliant and sensitive instrument Telugu turns out to be, when handled by a master, for purposes of scientific writing. Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s Telugu rendering combines technical rectitude and scientific precision with stylistic case and simplicity. The result is happy; while meeting the requirements of the exacting specialist, the book presents no problem in comprehension to the general reader. The author, to be literally correct, defines his work as a ‘translation’. However, a cursory perusal of this 653 page, closely printed volume would reveal that, thanks to the substantial original contribution of the professor, it far exceeds the dimensions of a mere translation. The critical review of many issues like the authenticity of Kautilya’s authorship of Arthasastrain a 48 page introduction and the elaborate commentary that accompanies the 605 page text convert it into a multi-faceted treatise.

Whether a translation should be free or faithful is a question that perhaps provoked academic debate since translation began. The excellence of a translation possibly consists in preserving the personality of the language of translation, without sacrificing the spirit of the original text. In fact, a translator, if he were a creative writer, is hardly ever confronted by a pair of sharp and mutually exclusive alternatives–freedom and fidelity. A reconciliation of these seemingly opposed virtues in the translator’s work is the mark of his genius. The present work of Prof. Venkatarangaiya provides a shining example of such reconciliation.

The present reviewer is painfully conscious of the serious limitation from which his exercise suffers; while the translation has been done in Telugu, the review is being made in English. Consequently, the statements of the reviewer run the risk of being reduced to safe, although flattering, generalisations unless they are supported by specific illustrations collected from the translation and presented in Telugu in the review. How the spirit of the original has been faithfully transmitted, how the correctness and precision of the terminology have been preserved, how the subtle shades of meaning of the Sanskrit expression have been conveyed by the Telugu version, how the text of the translation reads with unaffected ease, in fact, how the various tests of the excellence of a translation have been satisfied has to be established by citing relevant examples in Telugu from the present translation. This is precisely what cannot be done in the current review in English. Thus the reviewer regrets that the merits of Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s translation can only be suggested but not exhibited.

Indeed, the current translation under review represents a refinement over an earlier effort made by the professor in collaboration with late Pandit Akundi Venkata Sastry and published in 1923 at Vizianagaram. The immediately striking difference between the two editions consists in the quantitative expansion of their contents from 486 pages in the 1923 version to 653 pages in that of 1968 (inclusive of the introductions). Of course, it is the qualitative difference between the two that sets the seal of distinctive importance upon the later version. In a sense, the development of this volume between 1923 and 1968 reflects the impact of a lifetime of dedicated research by Professor Venkatarangaiya in the field of Political Science.

The earlier translation was based more or less exclusively upon the Sanskrit original edited and Published in 1923 by late Pandit R. Shamasastry of Mysore; the Current translation takes into account a few more manuscripts Published since then by other scholars, in particular the recension of the Sanskrit original brought out by Pandit Kangli under the auspices of the Bombay University in 1960. The result is that the current work proves to be academically far more satisfying, apart from being free from the obscurities and ambiguities that beset the edition of Pandit Shamasastry.

Another reason for the improvement in the current translation stems from the more elaborate treatment in its introduction of the life and times of Kautilya and the controversies that surround his work Arthasastra, with the result that the introduction itself has expanded from 36 to 48 pages.

An outstanding virtue of the present translation consists in its popular style. Whereas the earlier work bore upon it the unmistakable stamp of the traditional scholasticism as indicated by its terse, aphoristic, highly Sanskritised prose, the work under review is characterised by a style simple and lucid consistent with technical propriety, brief and pointed, without sacrificing clarity of thought. The work is bound to be popular; in addition to meeting the requirements of the savant and the researcher, it would satisfy a much wider circle of the reading public.

By far the most impressive evidence of improvement over the former translation consists in the copious footnotes and comments that accompany the text in the work under review. It is no exaggeration to say that, but for these illuminating comments, quite a few passages in Kautilya’s text would have remained obscure, even inexplicable to the lay reader. Apart from being an index of the author’s erudition and scholarship, they reveal how well and truly his extensive research in Political Science and Public Administration served him in interpreting Indian Polity of Kautilya’s times in terms of its modern counterpart.

Some random illustrations involving a comparative study of Pandit Shamasastry’s English translation and Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s Telugu translation would surely help in putting the Professor’s work in perspective. In the first instance, the approaches of the two writers fundamentally differ: Pandit Shamasastry, the classical scholar, confronted by the earliest known recension of Arthasaslraand anxious to render an absolutely faithful translation of it into a language alien in both idiom and structure, had grapple primarily with textual problems. Prof. Venkatarangaiya, taking advantage of latter and better edited recensions at his disposal, addressed himself as much to interpretation as to mere translation.

In the 15th Adhyaya in sutras Nos. 47 to 49 dealing with a difference of opinion between Kautilya on the one hand and the schools of Manu, Brihaspati and Usanasregarding strength of the assembly of ministers, Prof. Venkatarangaiya finds occasion to add an interpretative footnote saying, “It is clear from this that kings used to consult not only with ministers individually but with an assembly called mantriparishad(p. 42), while Pandit Shamasastry, having no linguistic problem here, contents himself with a simple translation. On the contrary, with regard to sutra No. 53. Pandit Shamasastry, assuming the original text at his disposal to be mistaken, corrects the term asanna(as given in it) into anasanna(not near). Inferring from the ease with which Prof. Venkatarangaiya disposed of this passage, we believe that he apparently faced no such linguistic problem. We give hereunder the identical passage as rendered by both the writers, to provide an interesting insight into their respective approaches to, and appreciation of, the original. Pandit Shamasastry: “He shall supervise works in company with his officers that are near asanna; and consult by sending writs (Patrasampreshanena) to those that are not near (anasanna).”(p. 28, 4th Edition, 1951) Prof. Venkatarangaiya: “He should take counsel in company with the mantrinsthat are present; he should consult those that are not present by means of writs.” (Re-translation is ours p. 42)

In the second Adhikarana, and Adhyaya 22 it would appear as though the original text in sutras Nos. 13 and 14 is capable of being translated in more than one way. Pandit Shamasastry initially translated it saying, “If cultivators pay their taxes easily, they may be favourably supplied with grains, cattle and money.” (p. 46) However, in a footnote he proceeds to Suggest–“The passage may mean: Cultivators may be supplied with cattle, etc, and these they may return at their convenience.” In Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s translation, the self-same passage reads thus: “(The king) should favour (cultivators) by giving them grain, cattle money and they have to return them at their convenience.” (p. 66) (Re-translation is ours) He comments in a footnote that “These are like the present day taccavi loans; it has been a very ancient custom for government to extend all kinds of assistance to cultivators.” It is noteworthy that Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s rendering of this passage closely resembles (if expressed in English) what Pandit Shamasastry says in his footnote by way of a correction.

Again, in Adhyaya 12, in Sutra 28 Pandit Shamasastry finds that the term “rupa” used by Kautilya is ambiguous. He is not sure whether it means Parikshika, testing charge, as the commentator (Battaswamy) takes it, or the premia of eight per cent (rupika), or whether it means cash, is not possible to determine.” However, he uses it in its ordinary sense, ‘cash’ (p. 87). No such ambiguity is traceable in the professor’s work. He explains in a footnote that the term ‘rupa’ means a fee payable for supervision (p. 121). Here are instances which show that a knowledge of the fiscal practices of the Mauryan age, in addition to Sanskrit, would be helpful in extracting the meaning of Arthasastraexactly and correctly.

In the third Adhikarana and third Adhyaya, Pandit Shamasastry holds the view that the original text as known to him in respect of sutras Nos. 10 and 11 is corrupt. His translation of the passage reads: “The same kind of punishments shall be meted out to a woman, who moved with jealousy or hatred, shows cruelty to her husband. Punishment for engaging in sports at the door of or outside her husband’s house shall be as dealt with elsewhere.” (p. 176) c., (Italicisedis ours) He refers in a footnote to a Tamil and Malayalam commentary which bases the wife’s jealousy on her husband’s connection with a prostitute. While no mention of such textual corruption is made by Prof. Venkatarangaiya, his translation of the passage reads significantly different. (Sutra 11) “Punishment as indicated elsewhere to a wife who, on account of jealousy, goes about outside the house.” (Re-translation is ours) (p. 219) A footnote explains that the wife might be jealous on account of either other wives or prostitutes. Here is a typical instance where passages of doubtful authenticity in the original involve even a competent translator in statements of uncertain meaning such as Pandit Shamasastry’s cited above; the more convincing rendering of Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s might be attributed as much to the availability of better recensions of the original as to his mastery over his craft.

In the same third Adhikarana, the eighth Adhyaya appears to be a fruitful source of trouble to scholar-translators. Pandit Shamasastry observes that “The whole chapter is full of obscure technical words,” and admits that his “translation is only tentative” and further adds that the Tamil and Malayalam commentary too is not clear in this context (vide footnote, p. 190). The intriguing passage which provoked this observation is translated thus: “With the exception of private rooms and parlour (angana) all other open parts of houses as well as apartments where fire is ever kindled for worship or a mortar is situated shall be thrown open for common use.” (p. 190) (Italicised is ours) The corresponding translation of Prof. Venkatarangaiya is not merely briefer and less involved but conveys a significantly different meaning for a section of the passage: “Warehouses, courtyards, toilettes, kitchens, grain-pounding halls, open places–all these shall be thrown open for common use.” (p. 236) (Re-translation is ours) It may be notedthat in the statement of the professor no exception is allowed for purposes of common use. Further, his footnote regarding the passage throws an interesting sidelight on community living in that age. “From this it is seen that two or three families lived as tenants in the same house.”

This brief comparative study between the translation of Pandit Shamasastry and Prof. Venkatarangaiya with the help of a few select instances (they can be multiplied ad lib)is attempted not with any intention of assessing their relative merits but solely for the purpose of focussing attention on the academic challenge with which an ancient text bristling with technical terms almost laconic in expression and often obscure in meaning confronts the translators. We offer our salutation to the great pioneering work ofPandit Shamasastry. At the same time, we are inclined to believe that the eminently readable rendering under review, so free from uncertainties, so convincing in its statements, so plausible in its observations, owes in no small measure to the specialised knowledge of Prof. Venkatarangaiya about the political, economic and social conditions reflected in the Arthasastra.

And this naturally leads us to an examination of the commentary of Prof. Venkatarangaiya. True, the work under review mould be assessed, not on the basis of its claims as a critical interpretation, but solely its merits as a translation. That precisely is the reason why we have left the substantial introduction severely alone, although the Professor’s learned discussion of the authenticity of Kaulilya’s authorship of his date, of his life and career, the exact subject matter of Arthasastra (commonly misconceived as Economics) and above all the administrative system delineated in that treatise deserves a close study by all serious students of ancient Indian history and polity. However, we prefer to dwell at some length on the illuminating comments of Prof. Venkatarangaiya offered mostly in the form of footnotes. In our view, they constitute a major attraction of his work, second in importance only the text proper. Thesecomments that run like an undercurrent throughout the text number as many as 674; indeed, printed by themselves they can easily form a booklet. In the last sloka in the original the author (Vishnugupta) claims to have himself written both the Sutras and their Bhashya. Actually, Sutras alone have been found in it, and no Bhashya. It is good that the Professor supplied the missing element and so completed the treatise.

While Prof. Venkatarangaiya’s comments throughout provide revealing insight into the subjects under reference, special mention can be made only of some random samples like the one on page 5 (No.1) explaining the composition of the original treatise, comprising a little less than 5000 slokas (instead of 6000 as claimed in it) and 5370 sutras; on page 33 (No.3) pointing out a similarity between the proposition of Kautilya in sutra 7 and Social Contract Theory in Western political thought; on page 56 (No.1) referring to the view of critics that 19th Adhyaya in the first Adhikarana implies the existence of kingdoms small enough to be directly ruled by kings and a political situation prior to the establishment of the Mauryan empire; on page 92 (No.2) showing how Kautilya, by maintaining that punishment should be proportionate to crime, followed a via media policy, rejecting extremist views (and this opinion is repeated in the comment on p. 249) ; on page 107 (No.1) arguing that sutra 63 provides one of the principal items of internal evidence establishing Kautilya’s authorship of Arthasastra; on page 141 (last paragraph), taking note of the trade and commerce carried on by government in the time of Kautilya and commenting that the 16th Adhyaya in the second Adhikarana dealing with State interference in economic sphere has a special relevance to the current thinking on Socialist society; on page 233 (No. 1) differing from Kautilya in respect of his views about the origin of mixed castes, as stated by him in sutras 26 to 34 (pp. 232-33) and arguing that some of the castes are actually traceable to places of origin and others to occupations; on page 259 (No. l) commenting that sutras 26 to 33 deal with regulations which resemble modern labour legislation; on page 315 (No. 1) drawing attention to the unusual legal convention prevailing in those times, totally unknown to us now that judges who failed to discharge their duties properly were as much subject o punishment as ordinary criminals; on page 338 (No.1) expressing a censorious opinion on the dubious measures mentioned by Kautilya for purposes of filling the treasury; on page 373 (No.1) noticing how Kautilya held the view that peace is always preferable to war; on page 387 (No.1) explaining how Kautilya was aware of the importance of conciliating the people for a king intent upon governing them, in view of the consequences of unpopular rule (mentioned in sutras 19 to 28); on page 489 (No. 1) establishing that deceipt is not repugnant to statecraft, especially when used to get a son given as a hostage set free; on page 474 (No.2) asserting that according to sutras 17 and 18, first Adhyaya in ninth Adhikarana. Kautilya is the foremost among political theorists who propounded the thesis that the whole of India constitutes a single empire; on page 530 (No.1) maintaining that the first Adhyaya in the eleventh Adhikarana is of paramount importance since it makes it clear that in ancient India in addition to monarchical States there were States ruled by aristocracies and that it deals with methods adopted by kings in the former bent upon imperial expansion to sow seeds of dissension among the confederate rulers in the latter; on page 546 (No. 1) pointing out a rather anamolous featllre in the text namely that whereas the 4th Adhyaya in the eleventh Adhikarana claims to contain two Prakaranas, the 166th and 167th, actually with the exception of 20th Sutra, the rest of the sutras pertain to the 166th Prakarana alone; and finally on page 576 (No.1) explaining the importance of the fifth Adhyaya in the thirteenth Adhikarana on the ground that it deals with the policy that a conqueror should adopt to win over a vanquished people, and adding how foreign rulers’ behaviour in the modern age runs counter to this advice.

Now, certain features of the method of translation are particularly gratifying. In the first place, the enumeration of the sutras in serial order and assignment of the translated material to its corresponding sutra number (traceable to the original) makes for quick and easy reference; and clubbing of sutras containing related ideas in the same paragraph, while allowing such of them as possess importance all their own to stand separately helps in projecting significant portions of the text prominently. Further, the close association of the original and the translation is conveyed by maintaining a one to one correspondence between the two in respect of slokas at the end of Prakaranas. These happy features are conspicuous by their absence in the translation of 1923. However, it may be noted that in the 1923 version at the end of each chapter (Adhyaya) the total number of Adhyayas covered till then is mentioned, after the manner adopted by Pandit Shamasastry in his English translation; this feature has not been repeated in the version under review. The reason might  be that the provision in this version a table of contents in the modern fashion, giving details of Adhikaranas, Adhyayas and Prakaranas along with their names and pages, is thought to have obviated the need of repeated enumeratian within the text.

A good index forms an unfailing feature of a substantial academic publication. Absence of such an index in the work under review amounts to a serious limitation. The exhaustive 18 page index in Pandit Shamasastry’s translation exemplifies a built-in reference facility. We hope that a second edition of the present work would not suffer from this lacuna.

The list of errata appended to the work is rather deceptively short; in fact it has failed to net many more errors sprinkled in the text. They detract from an otherwise excellent publication-attractive in its jacket, and artistic in its finely etched print, for which the Andhra Writers’ Co-operative Society Press is to be highly commended.

This publication illustrates one of those rare coincidences in which State patronage and genuine scholarship converge on an identical academic project. May their tribe increase. The financial contribution of the Government of Andhra Pradesh towards publishing this work is indeed praiseworthy. Considering the meritorious service rendered by Prof. Venkatarangaiya to Telugu scientific literature through this ‘translation’, he should not have been obliged to bear any part of the financial burden of the publication.

No educational or research institution professing to deal with Politics and Public Administration in Andhra Pradesh can afford to go without a copy of this translation of “Arthasastra”. Its study would surely inspire further fruitful research into the diverse political, social and economic issuses in which “Arthasastra” abounds. Greater fulfilment of a book and its author is difficult to be imagined.

* Translation into Telugu by Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya. Andhra Writers’ Co-operative Society Press, Hyderabad. 1968, Rs. 20, Pp. 635.