The Differential Uses of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Amartya Sen has at various times referred to the Indian fourth century BCE thinker Kautilya. Kautilya’s treatise Arthaśāstra (literally the ‘science of economy or material wellbeing’) explored possibilities of social choice. My paper attempts to delineate the connections between Sen’s deployment of (and sometimes dissatisfaction with) ancient Indian rational thought, in particular the ethical implications of Kautilya’s arguments about the welfare of the people: “in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king [i.e. the state] and in what is beneficial to the subjects his own benefit. What is dear to himself is not beneficial to the king, but what is dear to the subjects is beneficial (to him).” How the notion of welfare is defined and what specific measures are advocated and put in place is as central in Kautilya’s work as it is differentially central to our own times. Ultimately, both Kautilya and Sen are acutely aware that just institutions do not necessarily ensure social justice, however it is conceived.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAkademisk kvarter
Vol/bind14
Antal sider15
ISSN1904-0008
StatusUdgivet - 2016

Citer dette

@article{b62ba2a9bc59498087f894e28801d5ce,
title = "The Differential Uses of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra",
abstract = "Amartya Sen has at various times referred to the Indian fourth century BCE thinker Kautilya. Kautilya’s treatise Arthaśāstra (literally the ‘science of economy or material wellbeing’) explored possibilities of social choice. My paper attempts to delineate the connections between Sen’s deployment of (and sometimes dissatisfaction with) ancient Indian rational thought, in particular the ethical implications of Kautilya’s arguments about the welfare of the people: “in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king [i.e. the state] and in what is beneficial to the subjects his own benefit. What is dear to himself is not beneficial to the king, but what is dear to the subjects is beneficial (to him).” How the notion of welfare is defined and what specific measures are advocated and put in place is as central in Kautilya’s work as it is differentially central to our own times. Ultimately, both Kautilya and Sen are acutely aware that just institutions do not necessarily ensure social justice, however it is conceived.",
keywords = "statecraft, Kautilya, welfare state, social choice theory, justice, differential commonality, ‘Amartya Sen’",
author = "Prem Poddar",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "Akademisk kvarter",
issn = "1904-0008",
publisher = "Aalborg Universitetsforlag",

}

The Differential Uses of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra. / Poddar, Prem.

I: Akademisk kvarter, Bind 14, 2016.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Differential Uses of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra

AU - Poddar, Prem

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Amartya Sen has at various times referred to the Indian fourth century BCE thinker Kautilya. Kautilya’s treatise Arthaśāstra (literally the ‘science of economy or material wellbeing’) explored possibilities of social choice. My paper attempts to delineate the connections between Sen’s deployment of (and sometimes dissatisfaction with) ancient Indian rational thought, in particular the ethical implications of Kautilya’s arguments about the welfare of the people: “in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king [i.e. the state] and in what is beneficial to the subjects his own benefit. What is dear to himself is not beneficial to the king, but what is dear to the subjects is beneficial (to him).” How the notion of welfare is defined and what specific measures are advocated and put in place is as central in Kautilya’s work as it is differentially central to our own times. Ultimately, both Kautilya and Sen are acutely aware that just institutions do not necessarily ensure social justice, however it is conceived.

AB - Amartya Sen has at various times referred to the Indian fourth century BCE thinker Kautilya. Kautilya’s treatise Arthaśāstra (literally the ‘science of economy or material wellbeing’) explored possibilities of social choice. My paper attempts to delineate the connections between Sen’s deployment of (and sometimes dissatisfaction with) ancient Indian rational thought, in particular the ethical implications of Kautilya’s arguments about the welfare of the people: “in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king [i.e. the state] and in what is beneficial to the subjects his own benefit. What is dear to himself is not beneficial to the king, but what is dear to the subjects is beneficial (to him).” How the notion of welfare is defined and what specific measures are advocated and put in place is as central in Kautilya’s work as it is differentially central to our own times. Ultimately, both Kautilya and Sen are acutely aware that just institutions do not necessarily ensure social justice, however it is conceived.

KW - statecraft

KW - Kautilya

KW - welfare state

KW - social choice theory

KW - justice

KW - differential commonality

KW - ‘Amartya Sen’

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

JO - Akademisk kvarter

JF - Akademisk kvarter

SN - 1904-0008

ER -