A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, January 6, 2014
The Welfare State And The Arthashastra
( January 4, 2014 -Colombo -Sri Lanka Guardian) As a
new Gregorian year begins, it would be appropriate to revisit the
concept of a welfare state in the traditional Sanskrit canon. The state
had its obligations to the broader population. The public welfare was
the measure by which a state was assessed. Kautilya authored the
Arthashastra - a Sanskrit literary classic on statecraft - in the 3rd
century BCE. I relied on L.N. Rangarajan, “Kautilya: The Arthashastra:
Edited, Rearranged, Translated and Introduced”; Delhi: Penguin
Publication, 1992 for this piece.
The Arthashastra emphasized (i) a well-organized public administration;
(ii) economic prosperity; (iii) social welfare; (iv) effective
diplomacy; and (v) military preparedness as essential ingredients of a
successful state. A capable ruler had to focus on these five elements. I
will limit myself to the subject of public welfare.
This 2,200 year old Sanskrit document defined welfare as
"the increase in economic activity, the protection of livelihood,
safeguarding vulnerable segments of society, consumer protection, the
prevention of the harassment of citizens, and the welfare of labor and
of prisoners".
Kautilya begins his text by mentioning that
"In the happiness of his population, rests the ruler’s own happiness,
in their welfare lies his welfare,
he shall not necessarily consider as good whatever pleases him
but he shall consider as good whatever pleases his population.”
Kautilya proceeds to define the ideal ruler as one “who is ever active
in promoting the welfare of the people, and who endears himself by
enriching the public and doing good to them”.
The vast empire founded by Chandragupta Maurya in 321 BCE was
administered by an efficient bureaucracy. It had an excellent
communications network and came under the control of a strong ruler.
Kautilya was the King’s chief advisor and strategist. The Arthashastra
provided a political philosophy to unify previously small political
units, weld divergent groups into a broader cohesive identity and
integrate diverse linguistic groups. The emphasis on the common weal was
intended to cement a diverse and heterogeneous population. The end goal
was social cohesion.
This explains the continued relevance of several of the administrative
principles enunciated in this classical text. This Sanskrit document
influenced political theory and traditional statecraft in India, Nepal
and in the Hinduized states of classical-era South East Asia.
The references to the welfare state in the Arthashastra are vast. I will
confine this discussion to the prevention of public extortion, the
welfare of public officials and the welfare of prisoners.
Kautilya begins by defining public harassment to include (a) village
officials who extort; (b) heads of departments who are corrupt; (c)
judges who solicit bribes; (d) counterfeiters; (e) traders who cheat the
public; and (f) military personnel who go on rampage. The Arthashastra
suggests mechanisms to enable the public to routinely register their
complaints; to facilitate the investigation of such complaints; and to
provide compensation where called for. Punishments for corrupt officials
and traders are prescribed.
The Arthashastra defines the vulnerable segments of the population to
include “minors, the aged, the sick, the disabled, the mentally
challenged, Brahmins and ascetics”. The vulnerable “are to enjoy
priority of audience before the king, maintenance at state expense, free
travel on ferries and given special consideration by judges”.
Village elders were to hold the property of orphans in trust and look
after them. The state had to maintain destitute children, the aged,
childless women and the helpless. The Arthashastra emphasizes that “when
an enemy fort was attacked, non-combatants, those who surrender and the
frightened were not to be harmed”.
More importantly, Kautilya provides for the protection of female labor
from exploitation. It stipulates harsh punishment for rape. It
emphasizes the protection of commercial sex workers from physical injury
and exploitation.
In the section on the rights of prisoners, the Arthashastra emphasizes
the need for “(i) separate prisons for men and women; (ii) the provision
of adequate halls, water wells, bathrooms and latrines; (iii)
protection of prisoners from fire hazards and poisonous insects; and
(iv) safeguarding the rights of prisoners in their daily activities such
as eating, sleeping and exercise”. Kautilya restricts warders from
torturing prisoners and prescribes severe punishments for the rape of
female prisoners. He advocates the periodic release of prisoners on
general amnesty.
The Arthashastra recommends that “Those officials who do not eat up the
state’s wealth but increase it in a just manner and are loyally devoted
to the state shall be made permanent in service”. He adds that “an
official who accomplishes a task as ordered or better shall be honored
with a promotion and rewards.” “The state is to provide for the family
of a government servant who died on duty”.
Meanwhile, women had the right to inherit and transfer property. The
Arthashastra also states that the ‘third gender’/homosexuals should be
maintained by their families as they lack children and therefore do not
inherit property. It forbids the vilification of the ‘third gender’.
Many of these precepts are modern in outlook and resonate with a
contemporary audience. It is important to note however that it often
only represented theory and the ideal. The actual practice of statecraft
through the centuries did not necessarily meet these high standards.
Further, Kautilya urged rulers to ruthlessly crush dissent and political
opposition. His was not always a humane text in his anticipation of the
Machiavellian ethos. Moreover, several other principles of the
Arthashastra are irrelevant today.
Nevertheless, the text continues to provide an archetype of political
thought that defines Hindu political theory, much like Plato’s Republic
did in Europe. Its time to revisit it as we judge the effectiveness of
our contemporary political systems. There are other chapters on trade,
public finance and economic enterprise. But that discussion later.

