Believe it or not socialism in India is at least 3000 years older than Karl Marx. During Vedic times, besides capitalists and workers, there were also hoarders and black marketeers and the economic laws prescribed heavy punishments for them.Believe it or not socialism in India is at least 3000 years older than Karl Marx. During Vedic times, besides capitalists and workers, there were also hoarders and black marketeers and the economic laws prescribed heavy punishments for them. These included confiscation of their property. Capitalists and workers were inimical to one another in ancient India too. The present-day class war is nothing new and Mrs Gandhi seems to be doing her best to make industrialists and workers work together for the country's prosperity. To put an end to this enmity due to unequal distribution of wealth, the ancient Indian economists have suggested two remedies: one is the spiritualization of the group of capitalists so as to make them voluntarily surrender their surplus wealth for the good of those that need it. The second is the taking by force of the surplus wealth of selfish capitalists for fair distribution among the needy. The first remedy which, if strictly availed of by human society as a whole, will put an end to the evils of unequal distribution of wealth. It is taught in the fifth verse of the fourteenth chapter in the seventh Skanda of the Srimadhbhagavata. The chapter is a dialogue between King Yudhishthira and the celebrated sage Narada. The sage says that the economic principle he is going to propound has been handed down from an ancient Indian sage called Ajagara, who had taught his king to work as an ordinary human being with his mind fixed on God and no consideration as to the results of his work. Out of the results of his work, the worker, no matter whether he is a king, priest, merchant, or a tiller of the soil, should retain only as much as will be enough to satisfy his elementary craving, and leave the rest for others. The verse in which the principle is taught, is translated as: "Man is the power of only as much as will satisfy his hunger; if he aspires to possess more, he is a thief and deserves punishment." This is also stated in the reply which an ancient poet-philosopher gave to King Nanda. The king used to ask every day whether the poet had eaten his daily meal and the poet always replied "No." When asked, why, he is said to have replied: "Those who in their own house, eat with pleasure the rice grown by their own labour and cooked by the hand of their own wives after it is partaken by their twice born guests and after due offerings to the Gods, are real eaters. Such food, O Nanda, is not eaten by me." According to the Srimadbhagavata, this greed to accumulate and possess the profit earned by physical or intellectual labour is condemned in clear terms. Is then, it may be asked, life worth living? Will anyone engage oneself in agriculture, trade, or other occupations with no desire for the profits accruing from them? In reply to this the Srimadbhagavata says that possession of money is not prohibited for a householder. It is only the Vanaprasthas and the sanyasins that are required to disown money altogether. There is however, a difference of opinion regarding the quantity of money or grain that a householder can possess. "He may either possess enough to fill a granary or a store filling a grainjar; he may collect enough for three days or make no provision for the morrow." States a passage in Kulluka. According to Narada "what is sufficient for a year, six months, or three months." Regarding the way of disposal of what is more than enough for the householder, Manu says "whoever has grains enough for the maintenance of himself his dependants, and servants for three years is fully qualified to drink in some sacrifice." Thus a householder that has more than what is enough to maintain his family is required to spend his surplus in making gifts to the deserving. Whoever is found to disobey this rule is regarded as irreligious and his wealth is confiscated for distribution among the needy. Manu says: (XI 14) "Or he may take it by force or fraud from one who always takes and never gives and who refuses to give it; thus the fame of the taker will spread and his merit increase." The rule is that the king should take by force the wealth of the wicked and distribute it among the good (Asatamarthamadaya satameva prayachchhati). So, the Prime Minister's economic plan is a purely Vedic plan. Whether or not India can prosper by applying these ancient principles, only time can tell. - Bhikshu Chaman Lal, INFA Published On: Jul 9, 2014 Mauryan empire was the largest political entity to have existed in Indian subcontinent, spanning over 5 million square kilometres at its zenith under Ashoka. The population of the empire was estimated to be about 50–60 million, making Mauryan Empire one of the most populous empires of antiquity. from IndiaSpeaks The Mauryan Empire, which formed around 321 B.C.E. and ended in 185 B.C.E., was the first pan-Indian empire, an empire that covered most of the Indian region. It spanned across central and northern India as well as over parts of modern-day Iran. The Mauryan Empire’s first leader, Chandragupta Maurya, started consolidating land as Alexander the Great’s power began to wane. Alexander’s death in 323 B.C.E. left a large power vacuum, and Chandragupta took advantage, gathering an army and overthrowing the Nanda power in Magadha, in present-day eastern India, marking the start of the Mauryan Empire. After crowning himself king, Chandragupta took additional lands through force and by forming alliances. Chandragupta’s chief minister Kautilya, sometimes called Chanakya, advised Chandragupta and contributed to the empire’s legacy. In addition to being a political strategist, Kautilya is also known for writing the Arthashastra, a treatise about leadership and government. The Arthashastra describes how a state should organize its economy and maintain power. Chandragupta’s government closely resembled the government described in the Arthashastra. One notable aspect of the Arthashastra was its focus on spies. Kautilya recommended the king have large networks of informants to work as a surveillance force for the ruler. The focus on deception reveals a pragmatic, and borderline cynical, view of human nature. Bindusara, Chandragupta’s son, assumed the throne around 300 B.C.E. He kept the empire running smoothly while maintaining its lands. Bindusara’s son, Ashoka, was the third leader of the Mauryam Empire. Ashoka left his mark on history by erecting large stone pillars inscribed with edicts that he issued. After leading a bloody campaign against Kalinga (a region on the central-eastern coast of India), Ashoka reevaluated his commitment to expanding the empire and instead turned to Buddhism and its tenet of nonviolence. Many of his edicts encouraged people to give up violence and live in peace with each other—two important Buddhist principals. After Ashoka’s death, his family continued to reign, but the empire began to break apart. The last of the Mauryas, Brihadratha, was assassinated by his commander in chief—a man named Pushyamrita who went on to found the Shunga Dynasty—in 185 B.C.E.
Elections of five assembly constituencies are round the corner. I have seen few political parties manifestos for upcoming elections. I was flabbergasted to see, how engrained socialist and statist indian political minds are? Almost all of the political parties have promished to provided some thing or other for free. This brings my attention to examine the nature of Indian political economy. Was India always a socialist or welfarist state? I will compare and contrast two ancient emperor namely Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka’s political economy with modern indian republic economic vision. India’s first large empire came into being under the leadership of Chandragupta Maurya. The political manual for administration of Mauryan Empire was written by the Kautilya. What was the nature of the Kautilayan state? Entire reading of Arthaśāstra(a political treaty for governance) gave us picture of “strong but limited state” . Whereas, strong but limited state mean, state shall take few things entirely in it’s hand and it would have absolute monopoly on these things. It raises the hard question, what are the things that state must do? Broadly, In Arthaśāstra, state has absolute responsibility of internal and external security, monopoly of violence, regulation of activities(like trade, labour code, gambling, drinking, prostitution etc.)¹, enforcement of contract(to avert Matasyanyāya) and currency. Kautilya was not interested in the regulation of people behaviour like marry with whom, when to drink alcohol, what to eat, what to wear etc. But Let me warm you, Kautilaya was not the Robert Nozick. He was not liberaterian from any strech of imagination, neighter he was Rawl with his egaliterian utopia. He was the great pragmatist. Further, Kautilya was very suspicious with the Buraucracy, where he wrote in Arthaśāstra — As it is always difficult to know how much water a fish is drinking in sea, it is impossible to know how much money bureaucrates are eating from state coffer. Now, Emperor Ashoka, usually considered as Great (questionable in my view) had an idea of welfarist state. where he started regulating almost all the activities of his subjects. He wrote on his rock eddicts — what are duties of citizens, what citizens ought to do on chatumasi or amashya ? He even went one to appoint Dharmamahamanta to guide people for their religious belief. He sent Buddhist missionaries to other countries to propagate the Buddhism. He had established a typical “mai-baap sarkar”. Which I would call the “weak and maximum state”. Now let us compare and contrast, Republic of India’s statecraft.The First PM of India Shri JL Nehru very fond of Ashoka. He had established a typical mai-baap Sarkar. For example, The constitution of India enacted on 26 January 1946 has part IV namely Directive Principle of State Policy(DPSP) filled of mai-baap features like Article 39, 38, 44, 46, 47, 48. In my humble opinion these Articles are just unncessary burden to constitutional readers, since they are all for controlling the citizens choices. Governement of India has taken the responsiblity of religious reform which Ashoka was very much interested in. It has enacted Hindu code bill to regulate Hindu² marriage, divorce and succession but it failed to reform other communities personal laws. The Nehru was so passionate about socialism that he had almost abolished the Right to Property with so called land reform via 1st & 7th constitutional Amendment. Later Indira Gandhi went on high with this madness of socialism and nationalised all private bank with deposit above Rs. 200Cr, Insurance companies and Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act which basically crippled the private sector. But having done all this, What was the India’s economic growth? It was less than aggregate 4% during Nehru and Indira Period. The state control had almost killed the entrepreneurship and established bunch of crony capitalist. What was the result? India had faced deadly poverty with almost unaccounted famine and defeat with china in 1962 like Ashokan empire faced famine and later decimated by the Kharvela³ within 20 yr of his death. Then this raises a question what would have been Indian Republic if it would have followed the path of Kautilayan State post independence? it is very hard to predict the things but few things would have been centainly their. One, Since Kautilya was very obsessed with enforcement of contract, we would have had a very top noch functioning judiciary and pendency in courts must have been less than 35 million. Second, As Kautilyan state is hard on rule of law, the crime rate must have been less, since as pointed out by Constutitional Expert G. Austin — “Law is command of Sovereign backed by Sanction”. People respect rules if they fear the punishment. Third, There would have been no moral policing by state like prohibition, baning of prostitution and gambling and this would have been great source of economic activity. Ban only perpetuate the corruption and excesses by police, it never end the wrong. Fourth, Indian Bureaucracy would have been far more efficient since Kautilya doesn’t see citizens from lens of suspicion as in current state. For example — An Income tax officer is free to raid citizens as per his convenience since state hardly trust it’s citizen. Finally, there must been vibrant industrial growth since Kautilayan state doesn’t kill entrepreneurship, In fact, Kautilayan State awarded the Road Builder in that time. The Sad Part of current time is – India is still following the Ashokan Model despite it’s complete failure. Reason is simple, we are not interested in our history and we have never learned from it. I call this mentality, The Pritivaraj Chauhan Syndrome. |