The concept of Artha by Kautilya

                                             "Kautilya is an unashamed advocate of power in both internal administration and external relations of the state." When one reads most of the western translations and analysis, it is very common to stumble upon such opinions. Some Indian authors also go by the same notion.(Eg.Rao(1966) in his paper 'Kautilya and the secular state' makes such assumptions). The text should be read in the right spirit, to understand the balance of thought it propagates. When this is read in pieces and not as a whole, one comes to such biased conclusions. To understand his stand better, one should understand how Kautilya recognized four sciences and their inter-relationship. (Supported by researchers like K.J.Shah and Guru Charan Das)

Kautilya, recognizes four sciences- Anviksiki, trayi, vartta, dandaniti. These sciences discuss both material and moral wellbeing. Vartta and dandaniti give us the knowledge of material wellbeing, while Anviksiki and trayi discuss the moral wellbeing. He discusses the nature of these sciences, their interrelationship and implications of these relationships. 

In Anviksiki, the nature of science is illustrated by rational enquiry into Dharma and Adharma, Artha and Anartha, Nyaya and Apanyaya, and relative strength of these. The goal of science is to bring unity in thought, speech and action of individuals and society. Trayi discusses the duties of all Varnas and Ashrama dharmas. Vratta deals with agriculture and dandaniti deals with use of power for internal and external security.

Relationships between these sciences and its implications are further discussed by Kautilya, by stating that these sciences are not isolated from one another. They are related in such a way that Artha will not be Purusartha, unless it is in accord with Karma, Dharma and Moksha. He states that pursuing these sciences individually doesn't fulfill the goal of science- 'Unity in thought and action'. 

This can be summed up as: Artha alone as a goal is greed, Karma alone is lust, Dharma alone is mechanical ritual, and Moksha alone is escapism.

ArthaSastra lays down a structure to establish political institutions, which are in accordance with dharma. It could not have been the intention of Kautilya to say that Artha is the most important of all goals. This is done by explaining how Artha is the first chief of three-Dharma, Artha and Karma, because Dharma and Karma are rooted in Artha. Without Artha, there can be no karma and Dharma. But if there is Artha, without Karma and Dharma, what is the point of Artha by itself? Further, Artha will not be artha, if it is not in accordance with Dharma.

Artha in accordance with Dharma, and Dharma in accordance with Artha , are justified in the system of law and kingship, structured in such a way to attain both Artha and Dharma or Artha according to Dharma, and Dharma in consistency with Artha.

Just like most of the Indian texts, where smaller contexts are an integral part of bigger contexts, (Like a bigger story has multiple smaller stories embedded in it) it can be understood in the right spirit, only if one is aware of the bigger context.

The Gambler's song

The world of gambling is very fascinating and interesting. This is something which stood the test of time and remained alive. It has many references in our puranas and itihasas. Though gambling has been mentioned as a favorite recreation, its role in the epic Mahabharata is pivotal. What draws attention, more than the games are the stakes involved and ownership assumptions of the stakes.

When Pandavas offered elephants, chariots and finally their kingdom, their assumption of their ownership was not questioned. These were mere materialistic possessions. But when Yudhishtira offers his wife Draupadi as stake in the game, Draupadi questions him against his assumption of ownership of her. This whole episode gives an impression that wife is considered as an object to provide happiness to the man. Objectification of women is something that strikes in this gambling scene.

 An abducted Sita (from the epic Ramayana) to a modern day Delhi gang rape victim, there are countless examples of how women are commodified. Perhaps to be purchased, abducted, taken – and once tired of, even discarded; certainly not treated as full human beings with equal rights.
There is another important note that can be made from this story. Draupadi rejects Karna to participate in Swayamwara, considering that he wants to ‘gift’ her to Duryodhan. The same woman who revolted against objectifying her was made as a stake in the game. Does it carry a sense that women are free to voice against objectifying them as long as they are not married, but once they are married, they become possessions of their husband? Was that what she felt, since she followed her husbands into forest even after she was mistreated? The concept of patronizing women who follow their husbands into forests reflects the social expectations and demands of those times. There was no mention even in Ramayana or Mahabharata of how women who followed their husbands into forest felt. Were they doing it voluntarily or just succumbing to social pressures? Are these texts telling women what to do by showing these examples? Was there a context to discuss Draupadi’s opinion on sharing husbands? The story is always told from Pandava’s side as to how Kunti’s words can’t go false and that they had to share their wife. Also while mentioning of his victory in swayamwaram, Arjuna tells his mother that he has won a valuable prize. That is when his mother immediately responds by telling him to share it with his brothers. Is a woman nothing more than a valuable prize? Is she just an object that can be brought home, shared and enjoyed? Doesn't she possess rights to decide her own life? Did anyone bother to consider what she felt? Would any woman be willing to get married to five men?

This story makes the role of women in ancient India questionable. Women are taught and treated to be sub-ordinates and bound by social and cultural factors to loyally serve their husbands. Also the acceptance of multiple marriages of kings (polygyny), while idealizing women, who serve their husbands with devotion as ‘pativratas’ , reflects double standards in the social system. Exchange of a daughter’s hand in marriage to an emperor, as a symbol of their good relations, depicts the way women were objectified. Examples of women, who were treated as mere assets and picturing father or husband as the owner of a woman, while man is free to possess any number of women,  in many ancient texts reflects hypocrisy and patriarchy.

Interestingly, this scene of Mahabharata not only brings one to thinking about objectifying women but also the concept of ‘Dharma’ and dilemma in prioritizing dharma of various roles played by a  man. Mahabharata speaks about Yudhishtira having to have accepted the challenge as his Kshatriya dharma. Going as per the same notions, isn't it his dharma to protect his wife? Which Dharma is more important: As a Kshatriya or as a husband?  When he offers his wife in gambling, is his dharma as a husband overruled by his dharma as a king (Kshatriya)? Even if he is following Kshatriya dharma, does the same dharma approve him of gambling away his kingdom? Isn't Kshatriya dharma about protecting the kingdom and people, but not offering them as stake in a board game?
Isn't it human Dharma to treat all the creatures around you with respect and dignity, while considering them as equals?

The story of a Bengali Bahu in a Tamil family

These days I am encountering people who are so obsessed with the vedic knowledge arguing about going back and adapting ancient knowledge system. On the other side, Philosophers and researchers arguing that India has not significantly contributed to the science in recent times(Excluding Ramanujan and Bose). This made me interested in the trajectory of epistemology. Fortunately, one of my professors came with an article he published, to be discussed in the class. This broadly gave the idea of knowledge system and its emergence. I was more interested in the study of knowledge systems and their evolution, than in knowledge itself. After going through the article, I came to some understanding about western epistemology and its history. I am including a rough summary of it for better understanding of my further arguments(Read only if u r interested in History.Otherwise omit and save your patience for further discussion)
( For 2000 years, until 16^th century,  knowledge was limited to a set of disciplines. First division ‘Trivium’ constituted logic, grammar and rhetoric. Secondary education was concentrated on astronomy, music, arithmetic and geometry called “quadrivium”. Higher education was limited to Philosophy, Theology, Medicine and Law. Theology was a very important subject and was involved in every walk of life. Over a period of time, Theology slowly gave way to early modern disciplines. Various intellectual and social revolutions across Europe transformed the ordering of knowledge. Till 17^th century, Knowledge was ordered into two broad categories: Natural Philosophy and Natural History. By early 19^th century, a new order of episteme emerged, that gave rise to various specialized branches: traditional branches like Theology lost their prominence. Philosophy got restructured and became a part of arts. New disciplines like Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology emerged. In this period a new entrant emerged and gained importance. This branch called Social sciences was sharply demarcated. The birth of this discipline started during the enlightenment period and ended during French Revolution. Three major ideological camps have evolved in this newly formed discipline.1) Conservatives 2) anti-conservatives (anarchists, communists, etc.) and 3) Liberals.

Later, in the mid-19^th century, cultural and complexity studies argue against nomothetic theorizing and shifted to non-systemic, non-rational and non-predictive dimensions of reality. But this occurred more consciously and gave rise to ‘interdisciplinary’ approach. 21^st century brought in more proliferation of disciplines and had no patent interconnections between them. Today disciplines have become multidisciplinary and due to the enormous depth of each discipline, super speciality branches have evolved. )

Now, coming back to the argument of why India should/shouldn't go back and adapt ancient education system, I can state many arguments why that would not be a great idea but i will go with a few important ones.
1)Our vedic knowledge is not available in a complete form. We have bits and pieces, here and there, which are either taking their last breathe or artificially kept alive. Only 0.75% (I will quote sources substantiating this if u r really interested ;) )of our ancient knowledge is currently alive. Can we really afford to re-construct 99.25% of the knowledge from the existing 0.75%? Is it realistically possible?
2)Fortunately or unfortunately, colonial rule has already enforced its learning style and education system on most of the oriental countries. We are now standing at a mid point where we are crippled either to go forward (since western system in not yet imbibed into us) or backward(due to lack of knowledge left, and we hardly think in our mother tongue anymore...forget about doing something exotic and native.). We have been working on this system for more than 100 years now. If we go to our native style of education, we will loose on 100 years of progress.

Now, if you are accusing me of arguing on both sides of the discussion, hold on a minute... i am coming to the point.

To project India's current position, I can draw an analogy of a Bengali Bahu married to a Tamil guy. If one's cooking skill and knowledge of ingredients can be compared to the knowledge system, and Bengali bahu as India and Tamil In-law's house as Western system, the story can be told as:

It is difficult to follow bengali cooking in a tamil household, due to lack of availability of ingredients in TamilNadu, loss of knowledge and memory of bengali style of cooking, (for not keeping in touch with the native knowledge and loosing it overtime).
Since she is married to a Tamil family, she needs to learn to cook sambar. Irrespective of how well she tries to imitate and learn her mother-in-law's style of sambar, its not the same. Half her life is over in trying to learn to cook sambar in the exact way Tamilians do.
Now, for people asking why is India not making any significant contribution:
If half our life is over, to just learn and adapt to the new style, where is the scope and space to think about experimenting? Even in case the Bengali bahu tries to experiment something in Tamil style, She would still need the acceptance and approval of her Tamil In-laws to actually recognise that she has done a good job.
Aren't our scientists recognised in India, only after their work is accepted as authentic, by either american and europian scholars?
So what is the way out? How should the Bengali Bahu build up on the existing knowledge acquired by learning to cook sambar to make path breaking creative contributions?

First, to ignore her in-laws(read it as Western) domination in deciding and dictating what she should and shouldn't do, she should have a strong support system. This can be built by gathering similar Bahus, within the family (say, co-sisters) and create a professional group to analyse, critique and evolve. This makes her stand stronger. I would call these professional groups in India as "Universities" and "Research centres". Once your groups are stronger, strive to collectively produce good work constantly and benchmark these groups to highest standards. This will eventually make the in-laws look at your work with a positive and open mind. Once you beat them in their game, you can further look at integrating your native knowledge with the western knowledge to evolve into a new discipline. This would lead to a better acceptance of this new discipline.

Now, to people who still argue that Indians are not significantly contributing, I would say read about politics in intellectual arena about  how ivy league members are ganging up against the rest of the world when it comes to publishing. Don't count papers from India, but count papers by Indians sitting in the US universities.You will definitely see the numbers raising hugely.
Would it mean that Indians were dumb when they were here, and just got downloaded with knowledge once they go there??

Thinking – Discovering my inner world

I have always had this habit of letting my thoughts loose to just wander around, and trace back the chain of thoughts as to see where I started from and how I reached a certain thought. This is my favorite past time, when I wait for appointments, buses, during travelling and almost all the time when I am left idle. Today it occurs to me that I have never wondered about my experience of thinking itself, while actually doing it all the time, either consciously or unconsciously.

Today, when I think about my experiences of thinking, I realize that my thinking wasn’t constant throughout my journey. I thought differently during different points of my life. Various factors affected my thinking in various ways. So, can I say “thinking is not a constant experience but a dynamic one?” “Does one’s thinking depend on their life experiences?”  I feel that I think very similar to my dad. Most of the times, we come out with same thoughts and words. It makes me wonder if thinking is influenced by inherent characteristics or genes. I also wonder if thinking actually needs a language.

I remember a time, when I used to think in Telugu, which is my mother tongue. While today, I think in English. Now I tried to think in Telugu once again, and it seems to be little difficult. “Does thinking have a language? Does it have preference of one language over the other? ”Is there clarity of thought when one thinks in the language they are comfortable with?” does thinking mean “listening to your own thoughts?”

My thinking isn’t always monologue. There is a dialogue between two sets of thoughts.  I argue with myself and at instances laugh at my own arguments. Further extending these thoughts, I sometimes think in pictures too. These are the pictures I either recollect from my memory or sometimes create them myself.

Now, with my thoughts pondering about thinking, I am discovering a whole new world inside me, which I never realized, that existed. I most of the times lived in this ‘thought world’ playing different roles from an innocent sleeping baby to savior of the earth. I use this world as my rescue, when I need to run away from the real world. I remember this particular incident of picturing myself as bold speaker, while I was standing on the stage and trembling to speak. Most of the times, this thought world takes me into its arms to comfort me from real life problems. I create a whole scenario of the problem and its alternative solutions to estimate the effect each solution would have on me and people around. There were times when I pictured myself as solving these problems and standing as an achiever. Almost all the time, I am the protagonist in the play.

Though thinking happens all the time, thoughts are not always meaningful. At times, they tend to be random, unrelated, weird and creepy too. It takes enormous amount of energy to channelize my thoughts and not let them wander around. It makes me feel like a mental exercise. Thinking about mental exercises, sometimes I wonder how the phrase “food for thought” came into existence. “Do thoughts really need food?” “Do we lose our thinking ability if we don’t practice it (or can I say feed it)?” Does it become easier to channelize thoughts with practice? Are there methods to keep one focused on a single thought? Are there ways to develop specific ways of thinking like critical thinking and creative thinking? Are there ways to practice ‘not-thinking’?

 I also had instances where I did not think absolutely anything. At these instances, I did not think of not thinking anything too. My thought world would be blank and I wouldn’t realize that I wasn’t thinking anything. This mostly happens when I dance. My body dances to the well-practiced steps but my thoughts go blank. These are the moments I feel like in a world of eternal peace. “So, is thinking causing turbulence and making me loose peace?” “Is it good to think at all?” “What happens if we don’t think? Is it possible to stop thinking voluntarily?”

With all this thought about experiences of my thinking, should I call it an experience at all? Is thinking an experience like pain or pleasure? Can thoughts be felt? Do thoughts have any impact on physical processes of the body? Do thoughts control our body or body controls our thoughts?

Thinking about thinking is more like questioning the question. Should we ask right questions to figure out right answers? Do these questions have answers or will the answers lead to more questions and a lot more thinking?