Question : Why did kautilya think that sovereignty is hierarchical? Explain.
(2010)
Answer : Though Kautilya recognized that sovereignty may belong to a clan (kula), he was himself concerned with monarchies. He advocated the idea of the king’s divine nature, or divine sanction of the king’s office, but he also attempted to reconcile it with a theory of the elective origin of the king. He referred to a state of nature, without king, as an anarchy in which the stronger devours the weaker. The four functions of the king are to acquire what is not gained, to protect what is gained, to increase what is protected, and to bestow the surplus upon the deserving. The political organization is held to have seven elements: the king, the minister, the territory, the fort, the treasury, the army, and the ally. These are viewed as being organically related. The three “powers” of the king are power of good counsel, the majesty of the king himself, and the power to inspire. The priest is not made an element of the state organization. The king, however, is not exempt from the laws of dharma. Being the “promulgator of dharma,” the king should himself be free from the six passions of sex, anger, greed, vanity, haughtiness, and overjoy. What Kautilya advocated was an enlightened monarchical paternalism. At the same time Kautilya was very much concerned about the well being of the public. In the happiness of the subjects lies the king’s happiness. The main task of the king is to offer protection. Monarchy is viewed as the only guarantee against anarchy. Thus, the king’s duty is to avert providential visitations such as famine, flood, and pestilence; he ought also to protect agriculture, industry, and mining, the orphan, the aged, the sick, and the poor, to control crime with the help of spies, and to settle legal disputes. Thus Kautilya was of opinion that king has to take care of his subjects and therefore he cannot be authoritarian. There must be a system of checks and balances in the state. All powers should be vested in the king only if he considers himself the true father of his subjects. But if he deviates from this notion he should be restrained by his council of ministers, treasurers and ultimately by his subjects who are common people. According to him it is the public which is the source of power for the king. Thus there should always be a hierarchy of sovereignty in the state according to Kautilya.
Question : Does Badin’s theory of sovereignty ‘float in air’? Critically examine.
(2010)
Answer : When it comes to sovereignty the first theory which exerted wide influence was that of Jean Bodin In his view sovereignty is the highest power in a state which is subject to no laws but is itself the maker and master of them. It may reside in either on person or in a number of persons, but in either case it is above law, incapable of any limitation and having an absolute claim to the obedience of all. He admitted that in some way the sovereign is subject to Law of God and laws of nature, and is therefore he is bound to respect the rights of property and personal freedom. However, despite being a major contributor to the concept of sovereignty, Bodin has been often labeled an absolutist. Bodin is however a follower of unlimited and indivisible sovereignty- a continuation of the Divine Rights Theory with an absolutist king. Besides, the Hobbesian Leviathan, that sovereign ruler of the land, is as much as absolutistic as Bodin’s sovereign king. Therefore, it would not be proper to accuse Bodin of being an absolutist. Even though, Bodin had conferred “absolute power” to the sovereign, he does not want the subjects to obey those orders of the commonwealth which went against the laws of nature or God. Thus, even though the sovereign had “absolute” power, he was still bound to divine and natural laws. However, in defense against this argument, it can be said that even though the subjects went against the sovereign’s orders of disobeying natural or divine laws, they were bound to accept any punishment which the sovereign wished to inflict upon them. Thus there are some contradictions in the Bodin’s theory of sovereignty. On one hand he gives supreme power to the state and at the same time he restricts it by saying that natural laws are above sovereignty. Again he asserts that state is absolute and can make any laws on its own. But on the other hand he declares that right to property of an individual is an inalienable right and it can not be taken away or limited by sovereign power. That is why it is said that Bodin’s theory of sovereignty floats in the air.
Question : Define Monarchy. Is it ethically justified?
(2009)
Answer : A ‘Monarchy’ is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and “is wholly set apart from all other members of the state. The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. It was a common form of government in the world during the ancient and medieval times. There is no clear definition of monarchy. Holding unlimited political power in the state is not the defining characteristic, as many constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom and Thailand are considered monarchies. Hereditary rule is often a common characteristic, but elective monarchies are also considered monarchies (the pope, sovereign of the Vatican City State, is elected by the College of Cardinals) and some states have hereditary rulers, but are considered republics (such as the Great Council of Chiefs in Fiji).Today, the extent of a monarch’s powers varies:
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch rules as an autocrat, with absolute power over the state and government, for example, the right to rule by decree; promulgates laws and impose punishments. Absolute monarchies are not necessarily authoritarian; the enlightened absolutists of the Age of Enlightenment were monarchs who allowed various freedoms.
In a limited monarchy, it is another form of monarchy in the early stage of constitutional monarchy when the constitution not yet formulated. The monarch has limited political power under a rule of law.
In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is largely a ceremonial figurehead subject to a constitution. Sovereignty rests formally with and is carried out in name of The Crown, but politically rests with the people (electorate), as represented by the parliament or other legislature. Constitutional monarchs have limited political power, and are constituted by tradition and precedent, popular opinion, or by legal codes or statutes.
They serve as symbols of continuity and the state and carry out largely ceremonial functions. Still, many constitutional monarchs retain certain privileges (inviolability, sovereign immunity, an official residence) and powers (to grant pardons, to appoint titles of nobility). Additionally, some monarchs retain reserve powers. The justification of the rule of monarchy depends on the nature of rule of the monarch. If he delivers his duty in the interests of his citizens his rule will be called ethical. But if he becomes authoritarian then his monarch cannot be justified.Question : Compare Badin’s and Austin’s views on sovereignty.
(2009)
Answer : Austin places the notion of sovereignty at the basis of his theory of law. Austin wrote his works at a time when England was in need of vast legislative reforms. Austin’s concept of sovereignty has been discussed in his book ‘ Province of Jurisprudence Determined. He uses the concept of sovereignty to define law and the content of jurisprudence.
In his opinion the matter of jurisprudence is positive law, law simply and strictly so called or laws set by political superiors to political inferiors. A law, in the most general acceptance in which the term is employed may be said to be a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him. Of the laws set by men to men, some are set by political superiors, sovereigns; by persons exercising supreme government, in independent nations or independent political societies. According to Austin the superiority which is styled sovereignty and the independent political society that sovereignty implies is distinguished from other superiority and other societies by the following characteristics-
Since every law in an independent political society is set directly or indirectly by a sovereign person to a person in a state of subjection to its author, therefore it follows from the nature of sovereign that the power of a monarch is incapable of legal limitation. According to Austin the purpose for which the sovereign exists is the greatest possible advancement of human happiness, of the people of the community which the deity has commanded it to rule. From this proper purpose for which sovereign exists, Austin infers the cause of habitual obedience which he says is bottomed in the principle of utility.
Bodin described sovereignty as viewed from inside the political system, whereas Grotius described it as viewed from outside the political system. From the inside, sovereignty is experienced as a limited supreme power, whereas from the outside sovereignty is experienced primarily in terms of supreme power limited only by the ability to project that power. The study of international relations, which focuses on the external interaction of states, necessarily ignores the limited aspect of sovereignty; just as in the current historical context it tends to make sovereignty an attribute only of nation-states. As an external attribute of a nation-state, sovereignty refers to the ability to maintain internal order within a delimited geographic area, to speak for that order, and to exclude foreign powers from interfering with that internal order. Sovereignty is thereby usually linked with the successful maintenance of geographical boundaries, which is itself a characteristic of a nation-state. Bodin declared there was no natural designate of God’s sovereignty.
Sovereignty lay with whoever could successfully claim they possessed the essential character of sovereignty a power that is “most high, absolute, and perpetual.” Whoever can enforce their claim is sovereign, but the sovereign can “put in trust,” “pawn,” “loan,” or “lease” the execution of sovereignty to some agent or agents who act under the authority of the sovereign.
Question : “Acceptance of authority of the state is inconsistent with the highest duty of mankind, the duty to act autonomously.”
(2007)
Answer : The highest duty of mankind is to act autonomously. It refers to the fact that he should be free enough to act according to his free will. Unless he enjoys free will he would not be able to live the way he wants to. This kind of freedom is not good for man living in a society. This is because in that case his freedom may become a hurdle for the other members of the society. This where the state works as reality check. A state imposes certain restrictions on its citizens.
These restrictions are not meant to infringe the natural rights of a person. Rather, a state does in the best interest of its citizen. This way state creates an environment where each and every individual may live and develop his personality. The notion of autonomy ultimately remains content less and incapable of providing practical political and legal prescriptions without Kant’s substantive account of human nature, an account specifying both the proper moral ends that humans should strive for and the anthropological limits of human perfectibility. Kant’s theory of rights is informed by both sets of considerations.
Contrary to the received view, Kant develops a socially sensitive account of the self in his later writings, and comes to believe that individual autonomy depends in large measure on the realization of certain propitious socio-cultural and political arrangements. There are three main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
The provision of welfare services by the state.
An ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility in theory ought to be comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered and universally applied to citizens as a “right”. Welfare state can also mean the creation of a “safety net” of minimum standards of varying forms of welfare. Here is found some confusion regarding the “welfare state” in common debate about the definition of the term.
The provision of welfare in society. In many “welfare states”, especially in continental Europe, welfare is not actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary and government services. The functional provider of benefits and services may be a central or state government, a state-sponsored company or agency, a private corporation, a charity or another form of non-profit organization. However, this phenomenon has been more appropriately termed a “welfare society,” and the term “welfare system” has been used to describe the range of welfare state and welfare society mixes that are found.
Thus the acceptance of the authority of a state does not amount to escape the man’s highest duty. A state’s function is meant for the welfare of its citizens.
Question : Explain the notion of sovereignty. Critically consider, in this context, the claim that sovereignty is illimitable and logically indivisible.
(2006)
Answer : Sovereignty is the exclusive right to control a government, a country, a people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority. Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will.
Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.” A more formal distinction is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d’état, regardless of the intentions.
In constitutional and international law, the concept also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in some contexts to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. Jean Bodin is considered to be the modern initiator of the concept of sovereignty, with his treatise Six Books on the Republic which described the sovereign as a ruler above human law and subject only to the divine or natural law. He thus predefined the scope of the divine right of kings, stating “Sovereignty is a Republic’s absolute and perpetual power “. Sovereignty is absolute, thus indivisible, but not without any limits: it exercises itself only in the public sphere, not in the private sphere. It is perpetual, because it does not expire with its holder. In other words, sovereignty is no one’s property: by essence, it is inalienable.
These characteristics would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau’s definition of popular sovereignty, which only differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable – Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy is founded. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty. Carl Schmitt defined sovereignty as “the power to decide the state of exception”, in an attempt, argues Giorgio Agamben, to counter Walter Benjamin’s theory of violence as radically disjoint from law. Georges Bataille’s heterodox conception of sovereignty, which may be said to be an “anti-sovereignty”, also inspired many thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Agamben or Jean-Luc Nancy.
There exist vastly differing views on the moral bases of sovereignty. These views translate into various bases for legal systems. Partisans of the divine right of kings argue that the monarch is sovereign by divine right, and not by the agreement of the people. Taken to its conclusion, this may translate into a system of absolute monarchy. Rousseau’s also deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right, determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest, but though the general will is always right and desires only good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) have authority to make and impose them.
Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. Representative democracies permit (against Rousseau’s thought) a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to the parliament or the government. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the Parliament is, ultimately, the source of sovereignty, and not the executive power. Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Ruler as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dalí, for instance, talked of “anarcho-monarchist”; Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a kind of “anti sovereignty”.
Therefore, anarchists join a classical conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over one’s own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated. Republican form of government acknowledges that the sovereign power is founded in the people, individually, not in the collective or whole body of free citizens, as in a democratic form. Thus no majority can deprive a minority of their sovereign rights and powers. Imperialists hold a view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of the individual in deference to either the ‘good’ of the whole, or to divine right. The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.
Question : Give a critical account of Austin’s view that power is the determining factor of sovereignty.
(1999)
Answer : Austin places the notion of sovereignty at the basis of his theory of law. Austin borrowed from the European experience he had .The sudden break up of the roman empire after thousands of year of peace full rule made people realize that peace can be maintained only through a singe unified authority with infinite power of command at its disposal. Moreover Austin wrote his works at a time when England was in need of vast legislative reforms. He had spent considerable years at German universities, as a lawyer he was trained on Coke Institutes, Blackstone commentaries and chaotic other haphazard legal records available; this would have caused a deep dis-satisfaction with the form of English Law.
He attributed this chaos to loose thinking and did not regard natural law as a useful tool to bring in sound changes and since his aim was designed to search for a coherent system of law he divorced law from morals, ethics religion and other social norms. Keeping in mind this it will be better to discuss Austin’s theory of sovereignty. Austin’s concept of sovereignty has been discussed in his book ‘ Province of Jurisprudence Determined’. For Austin laws are commands of sovereign supported by sanction. The word law presupposes a command that obliges a person to a course of conduct, being a command it must issue from a determinate person with the threat of displeasure if not obeyed .He uses the concept of sovereignty to define law and the content of jurisprudence.
He says that the matter of jurisprudence is positive law, law simply and strictly so called or laws set by political superiors to political inferiors. A law, in the most general acceptance in which the term is employed may be said to be a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him. Of the laws set by men to men, some are set by political superiors, sovereigns; by persons exercising supreme government, in independent nations or independent political societies. According to Austin the superiority which is styled sovereignty and the independent political society that sovereignty implies is distinguished from other superiority and other societies by the following characteristics:
To define it in words of Austin “If a determinate human superior not in a habit of obedience to a superior receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society that determinate superior is sovereign that society, independent political society. Regarding the limits of the sovereign Austin said that since every law in an independent political society is set directly or indirectly by a sovereign person to a person in a state of subjection to its author, therefore it follows from the nature of sovereign that the power of a monarch is incapable of legal limitation. If a monarch was bound by the commands of another superior he cannot be the sovereign. The power of the sovereign imposing restraints would be free from fetters of positive law.
According to Austin even though sovereign bodies have attempted to oblige themselves or to oblige their successors to their sovereign powers the position that they are incapable of any limitation will hold true universally. He clearly states that the laws imposed by sovereign on themselves are merely “rules of positive morality”, they are merely principle that they adopt as guidelines, sovereign is not constrained to observe it by a legal or political sanction, for if the sovereign was legally bound to observe it, the sovereign would be in a sate of subjection to a higher superior or sovereign. Rationale behind obeying a sovereign, According to Austin is the purpose for which the sovereign exists and that is the greatest possible advancement of human happiness, of the people of the community which the deity has commanded it to rule.
From this proper purpose for which sovereign exists, Austin infers the cause of habitual obedience which he says is bottomed in the principle of utility. If the enlightened masses thought that sovereign accomplished its proper purpose, this would be their motive to obey. If they deemed the government to be faulty a fear that the evil of resistance might surpass the evil of obedience would be their inducement to summit to the sovereign, for they would not persist in obedience to a government which they deemed imperfect if they thought a better government might probably be got by resistance. But Austin takes into account also those who are not adequately informed or enlightened, he says that such people render obedience as a consequence of custom, they pay obedience as they are in a habit of obeying, here prejudices and not utility are the factor that is responsible for obedience.
The habitual obedience arises from a perception by the bulk of the community of the utility of the government or a preference of any government to anarchy. Thus according to him the general cause of permanence of government is that the general masses were desirous of escaping to a state of government from a state of anarchy. Thus they submit freely or voluntarily to a sovereign.
But Austin’s theory of sovereignty is not flawless. According to Austin only those commands that are given by a political superior i.e. sovereign are laws strictly so called that is law in the real sense, this would mean that the existence of a state or sovereign is a pre condition for laws to be formed & obeyed This definition of law cannot stand the scrutiny of history. Historically law is older than any form of government or state. Through a mature political system, a state may develop machinery for creating, applying and enforcing the rules but no doubt laws may exist even in the absence of state machinery. Any era in human history would defy the definition of law given by Austin. Even in primitive societies where there was no organized state or sovereign, there were rules behind which the community threw the whole weight of its organization. The structure in these societies was such that a man suffered if these rules were disobeyed. Even though here were no machinery of the sovereign to implement these rules, a primitive man followed these obligations as he knew no would help him in future. In the middle ages an application of Austin’s definition would give very less compass to law, for at that time there was the law of the church, the law of the merchants, and though all of them governed the day to day behavior of the bulk of the population and was enforced by the state, none of these would be law according to Austins’ definition.
Definition of law given by Austin is thus incomplete from an anthropologists view. Anthropologists urge that primitive law serves the same function as modern law serves today and that essence of law is its function rather than the form in which it is created or the method in which it is enforced.. Thus law should be defined by its function rather than its form or origin.
But though the above criticism stands true, it cannot be said that Austin did not recognize any other source of law except for the command of the sovereign. In his own words “while however either directly or remotely, the sovereign or supreme legislator is the author all laws but immediately and directly laws can have different authors” He recognizes ‘’judicial legislation as a subordinate source of law’’. Thus he accepted that at times judges do make laws , but still he was of the view that ‘judicial legislators legislate arbitrarily”
Thus we see that there is a subtle acceptance of judge made laws unless of course they do not go against the commands of sovereign. But still he defines law only on the basis of its source and not functions. Because even if he accepts judge made law he pre supposes a state machinery to enforce them while anthropologists agree that there are various laws that govern day to day conduct and are observed with due diligence without the support of any state machinery for their enforcement take fore example religious practices. By postulating that sovereign is free from all restraints of any kind of law and that no sanctions of any nature can be imposed on him Austin seems to inject an anarchical element into the world order and was probably giving an excuse for the worst excesses of 19th century sovereigns. The power of sovereignty according to Austin is incapable of legal limitation, thus it follows that the notion that rules of law might bind sovereign in their dealings was foreign to Austin. This means that within his territory a sovereign is free from all restraints as he is the sovereign. But the facts of international life are different today.
Question : Explain Bodin’s principle of absolute sovereignty. What was his argument for preferring monarchial sovereignty over democratic sovereignty? Consider in this context whether his advocacy of undivided sovereignty was consistent with his belief in constitutionalism.
(1998)
Answer : Jean Bodin is considered to be the modern initiator of the concept of sovereignty, with his treatise Six Books on the Republic which described the sovereign as a ruler above human law and subject only to the divine or natural law. He thus predefined the scope of the divine right of kings, stating “Sovereignty is a Republic’s absolute and perpetual power". Sovereignty is absolute, thus indivisible, but not without any limits: it exercises itself only in the public sphere, not in the private sphere. It is perpetual, because it does not expire with its holder. In other words, sovereignty is no one’s property: by essence, it is inalienable. The modern concept of sovereignty owes more to the jurist Jean Bodin than it does to any other early modern theorist.
Bodin conceived it as a supreme, perpetual, and indivisible power, marked by the ability to make law without the consent of any other. Its possession by a single ruler, a group, or the entire body of citizens defined a commonwealth as monarchy, aristocracy, or popular state. Without it a commonwealth was not properly a state at all. Bodin favoured absolute monarchy, but the legacy of medieval juristic ideas and the political conflicts of his time led him into some contradictions and changes of front.
In his book Bodin first discussed the nature of sovereignty, which he called in Latin suverenitas. Using a comparative historical method, he classified past and present states and empires and reviewed the opinions of Roman law jurists on the meaning of such terms as the highest authority and unqualified authority. He insisted that the mixed state was impossibility, but at this stage he did not stress the legislative function. It was listed as only the second of five functions of sovereignty, the others being creating magistrates, declaring war and peace, hearing judicial appeals in the last resort, and deciding on life or death where the latter was the prescribed penalty. In The Commonwealth making and unmaking law became the sole function, engrossing all the rest.
Here Bodin was influenced by Roman law traditions that saw legislative power as command or will, as expressed in the maxim “what pleases the prince has the force of law. The main reason for Bodin’s theory was probably the desire to outflank theories of legitimate resistance to the French crown advanced by Protestant writers in the contemporary civil wars. However, he did suggest certain limitations on the power of what he termed “royal monarchy,” as distinct from lordly and despotic types of ruler-ship where power knew few or no boundaries. In a royal monarchy, such as France, England, Scotland, and Spain, the sovereign was bound to observe divine and natural law; he could not tax his subjects without their consent; he should keep contracts with his subjects; and he was unable to alter certain fundamental laws, such as the laws of succession to the throne.
Despite these limitations, the power of a royal sovereign was termed “absolute,” and this is not surprising, since Bodin undermined most of these constitutional reservations. The sovereign was the sole judge of divine and natural law; he could tax without consent in emergencies; and he could decide that contracts were no longer operative when, in his view, a subject had ceased to benefit from them. An additional novelty was introduced in The Commonwealth. While continuing to insist on the indivisibility of sovereignty and the impossibility of the mixed state, Bodin made a distinction between the form of the state and the method of its administration. A sovereign might choose to administer his realm using officials of aristocratic or popular origin, thus giving the false impression of mixture.
Question : Kautilya on sovereignty.
(1997)
Answer : For Kautilya the elements of sovereignty were the king, the minister, the country, the fort, the treasury, the army and its ally, and the enemy. A good king was described as born of a high family, godly, virtuous, courageous, truthful, grateful, ambitious, enthusiastic, not addicted to procrastination, powerful in controlling neighbor kings, resolute, with a good assembly, having a taste for discipline, with a sharp intellect and memory, trained in various arts, dignified, with foresight, discerning the need for war, not haughty, free of passions and bad habits, and observing traditional customs. These ideas are found in his book Arthasastra.
According to him, “The king who is well educated and disciplined in sciences, devoted to good government of his subjects, and bent on doing good to all people will enjoy the earth unopposed”. A saintly king shakes off the aggregate of the six enemies like: lust, anger, greed, vanity, haughtiness and over joy; acquires wisdom, restrains from the organs of senses; he is disciplined, maintains his subjects; employs good ministers for assistance; and keeps away from unrighteous transactions. If a king is energetic, his subjects will be equally energetic. He should keep a time table/ programme each day. If he is accessible to people, he may be sure to avoid confusion and public disaffection. He keeps company with priests and teachers. In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their welfare his welfare is ensured.
The king shall ever be active and discharge his duties; the root of wealth is activity, and of evil its reverse. By his good activities, he can achieve his desired ends and abundance of wealth. Kautilya holds that a blind king is better than an erring king, because “a blind king can be made by his supporters to adhere to whatever line of policy he ought to. But an erring king, who is bent upon doing what is against the science, brings about destruction to himself and to his kingdom by misadministration. While talking about planning, Kautilya says that the king shall plan his administrative measures after deliberations in a well-formed council.The subject matter of the council shall be entirely secret. He deals with the duties of government superintendent in detail. Kautilya touches upon every possible area of administration starting from “Formation of Villages” and “Division of Land”, and describes the duties of the superintendent of respective departments.
Kautilya says, “Sovereignty (rajatva) is possible only with assistance. “A single wheel can never move.” Therefore, a king shall employ ministers and councilors and listen to their advice”. At the head of affairs was a small body of elder statesmen, whom the king was advised to choose with the utmost care. The size of this Privy Council (mantri-parishad) varied. Men whose ability is inferred from their capacity shown in work, should be, having taken into consideration the place and time where and when they have to work, appointed as ministerial officers.
The king shall examine the character of ministers. He shall ascertain their loyalty and disloyalty by temptations through priest spies. Thus, in Kautilya’s time, every aspect of the sovereignty of the king was watched over, and as far as possible controlled by the government. According to him hose who are possessed of foresight, wise, of strong memory, bold, eloquent, skilful, intelligent, possessed of enthusiasm, dignity and endurance, should be appointed as ministers, councilors and priests.
