Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 125 views

    Kautilya's View of Social Contract

    Uploaded by

    Azmaine Sanjan
    Kautilya believed that a king's power came from the prosperity and affection of his subjects, not divine right. He saw the relationship between ruler and ruled as a social contract - the people consented to the king's rule in exchange for protection and security. A king who failed to uphold his side of this bargain by harming his people through unjust practices risked impoverishing and alienating them, potentially leading to rebellion. Therefore, it was in the king's self-interest as well as his duty to ensure the welfare of his subjects. Kautilya advised kings to take remedial measures if rebellions were caused by the people's disaffection with the ruler's faults, and to correct those faults

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kautilya's View of Social Contract

    Uploaded by

    Azmaine Sanjan
    125 views2 pages
    Kautilya believed that a king's power came from the prosperity and affection of his subjects, not divine right. He saw the relationship between ruler and ruled as a social contract - the people consented to the king's rule in exchange for protection and security. A king who failed to uphold his side of this bargain by harming his people through unjust practices risked impoverishing and alienating them, potentially leading to rebellion. Therefore, it was in the king's self-interest as well as his duty to ensure the welfare of his subjects. Kautilya advised kings to take remedial measures if rebellions were caused by the people's disaffection with the ruler's faults, and to correct those faults

    Original Description:

    Social Contract

    Original Title

    Social Contract (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kautilya believed that a king's power came from the prosperity and affection of his subjects, not divine right. He saw the relationship between ruler and ruled as a social contract - the people consented to the king's rule in exchange for protection and security. A king who failed to uphold his side of this bargain by harming his people through unjust practices risked impoverishing and alienating them, potentially leading to rebellion. Therefore, it was in the king's self-interest as well as his duty to ensure the welfare of his subjects. Kautilya advised kings to take remedial measures if rebellions were caused by the people's disaffection with the ruler's faults, and to correct those faults

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    125 views2 pages

    Kautilya's View of Social Contract

    Uploaded by

    Azmaine Sanjan
    Kautilya believed that a king's power came from the prosperity and affection of his subjects, not divine right. He saw the relationship between ruler and ruled as a social contract - the people consented to the king's rule in exchange for protection and security. A king who failed to uphold his side of this bargain by harming his people through unjust practices risked impoverishing and alienating them, potentially leading to rebellion. Therefore, it was in the king's self-interest as well as his duty to ensure the welfare of his subjects. Kautilya advised kings to take remedial measures if rebellions were caused by the people's disaffection with the ruler's faults, and to correct those faults

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    To many, Kautilya comes across as amoral because of his relentless focus on realism.

    Worse
    still, as a consequentialist—someone who believes that the ends justify the means—some of his
    prescriptions seem downright immoral, especially to those who privilege the means over the
    ends. Yet, Kautilya was a true progressive in that he wanted to make a better society. He did not
    eschew dharma:

    “Sukhasya Mulam Dharmah

    Dharmasya Mulam Arthah”

    Rather he believed that happiness was rooted in dharmic behaviour and that dharma could
    flourish only in a prosperous society. With his moral compass firmly in place, he went about
    prescribing policies for promoting prosperity without ritual genuflections to moral sentiments in
    every other page.

    Kautilya’s View of Social Contract

    “People suffering from anarchy first elected Manu to be their king and allotted one-sixth of the
    grains grown and one-tenth of merchandise as sovereign dues. Fed by his payment, kings took
    upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of their subjects.”
    Kautilya

    Here is a clear statement of the origins of monarchy—no divine sanction, just people coming
    together and creating an arrangement that collectively enhanced safety and security. Kautilya
    was not the originator of this social contract notion of kingship, but he develops it further. A king
    forgets the implicit social contract that puts himself in peril. Kautilya says, “When a people are
    impoverished, they become greedy; when they are greedy, they become disaffected; when
    disaffected, they either go over to the enemy or kill their rulers themselves.” It is incumbent upon
    the king to deliver on his side of the deal, not just from a higher moral sense but also from self-
    interest. Indeed, Kautilya states that impoverishment and disaffection are engendered when the
    king “causes harm by unrighteous practices, ...does not carry out his part of what is agreed
    upon; and by his indolence and negligence destroys the welfare of his people.”

    Kautilya is famous for recommending the extensive use of a surveillance state to protect the
    sovereign and nip coups and revolts in the bud. However, he is careful to distinguish between
    threats arising from conspiracies among the elite and a revolt brewing among the people because
    they are disaffected. In the latter case, he recommends, “he shall immediately take remedial
    measures.” He also says, “If the rebellion is due to the king’s own faults, he shall correct them.”
    His harsh measures are reserved for dealing with rebellions by opportunistic members of the
    elite. He also distinguishes between upright and villainous conspirators. Kautilya wants the king
    to win over the former because, “upright men conspire for the sake of others similarly placed.”
    Thus, he recommends, “The king shall make a treaty with an upright man [and keep it]. With a
    villain, a treaty shall be made with a view to outmaneuvering him.”

    Kautilya makes it clear that the true source of a king’s strength is the prosperity and affection of
    his subjects. A king “not being rooted among his subjects becomes easy to uproot.” He also
    states, “When a just king is attacked, even if he suffers from serious calamity, his subjects will
    help him.” On the other hand, “A king… without support… is deserted by his subjects” when
    attacked.

    In this light, let us consider Kautilya’s famous injunction,

    Prajasukhe sukham rajnah, Prajanam ca hite hitam

    Natmapriyam hitam rajanah, Prajanam tu priyam hitam

    (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.)

    It cannot be seen a mere moral exhortation but one rooted in enlightened self-interest and
    reciprocity.

    You might also like