Price Control Mechanism in Arthasastra

Price Control Mechanism in Arthasastra

Ratan Lal Basu

Contents

Chapter-1: Introduction

Chapter-2: Economic System Prevalent in the Age of Arthaśāstra

Chapter-3: Production Structure in Arthaśāstra

Chapter-4: Principles of Price Determination in Arthaśāstra

Chapter-5: Price Determination Model in Arthaśāstra

Chapter-6:  Arthaśāstra and Price Policy in India during the Plan Period

Chapter-7: Verification of Hypothesis

Selected Bibliography

Chapter-1:Introduction

1.1 Preface

In the conventional academic circles, we trace the origin of accounting, banking, commodity production and all other laws and concepts of economics and commerce in Britain, especially, the British Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century.

There are innumerable well written books and articles on the economic thoughts of Adam Smith, Mercantilists, Physiocrats and various western economic schools. As regards ancient economic ideas we may refer to Greek ideas, even to the Old Testament. Unfortunately, very little effort has been given to explore the economic ideas inherent in ancient Indian literature. Western education has generated a feeling of disdain for ancient Indian culture and tradition among a large number of intellectuals. On the other hand, many express the view (without any substantiation) that we had everything of modern knowledge in ancient Indian writings. From this mess of biased views it is very difficult to filter out the essential aspects of ancient Indian achievements in different branches of knowledge.

Under these circumstances, one showing interest in ancient Indian economic ideas is likely to come up against insurmountable barriers. One class of intellectuals hold the view that it is a sheer fantasy to conceive of the existence of analytical economic ideas in ancient Sanskrit literature. Others opine that it is all divine and beyond the scope of scientific study. It is more dangerous to project (deliberately or out of ignorance) ideas discovered in modern era into the ancient times with the claim that they had been discovered in those days. Bias either way, out of either disdains or pseudo patriotism for the motherland, are equally troublesome as regards unraveling the truth inherent in ancient Indian writings. So one, studying ancient Indian economic ideas, is to painstakingly guard against both of these faux pas.

In spite of all these hazards, many scholars, particularly during the high-tide of nationalist movement in the first  half of the 20th century, attempted to make an objective and unbiased evaluation of ancient Indian economic ideas implicitly or explicitly contained in ancient Indian writings, particularly, the Arthaśāstra of Chanakya, alias Kauṭilya( the straightforward and matter of fact approach of the book itself makes it most suitable, among ancient Indian literature, for a scientific study). The objective observation of M. A. Buch is worth noting in this context. He opines that economic ideas are but reflections of actual economic conditions of society. In ancient India, since the sixth century B. C., there had been considerable development of trade, commodity production and cash economy. So, economic ideas naturally developed in order to provide guidelines to traders, manufacturers and the rulers whose income depended on prosperity of the economy.

To quote him: In the same way in economics we cannot expect any approach to Mill and Nicholson, Marshall and Taussig among the ancient writers of vartta. On the whole, the manner of presentation was concrete. The aim of vartta was severely practical; its business was to guide the trader, the agriculturist, the cattle-trainer, the artisan, the director of industries, the statesman, the teacher, the cultivator. (Buch, 1979, p. 15). We can, by no means, expect the economic ideas associated with modern industrial economics in ancient Indian writings as there is no evidence of the existence of modern factory industries and industrial capitalism in those days.  Nor does it imply that the purpose of research into ancient Indian economic thought is to try any ancient model as such for the modern Indian economy. Nevertheless, study of ancient Indian economic ideas is likely to endow us with a deeper insight into our culture and tradition and the inherent national characteristics. It is all the more so because long foreign domination and indiscriminate experiments, after independence, with imported foreign models, have generated much confusion. In fact, we can hardly select a suitable model for development, nor can we investigate the real causes of failure of models so far tried, unless we have a clear idea about the characteristics of our nation which have been distorted beyond recognition by colonial rule and experiments with foreign models. As a reaction to all these distortions, a school holding diametrically opposite view, that revival of ancient ideas and methods is going to solve all our problems and we have nothing to learn from the modern western civilization, has emerged. Both the opposing camps have built up their views on sheer dogmas. So, an objective study is necessary. It is not a quest for the golden mean. May be ancient ideas are not at all relevant for modern India, may be they are sufficient to provide the complete guidelines for the course of our economic development, may be a ‘golden mean’ is the best choice. We, however, cannot come to any definite conclusion on the basis of preconceived rigid dogmas. Only an unbiased objective study can provide the right answer.

As regards the utility of the study of ancient Indian literature in connection with devising policies suitable to Indian tradition and objective conditions, Aiyanger observes, —-—the historical interpretation of old systems of social thought, such as may result from a comparative study with their analogues, may help us to realize how social institutions have to be adjusted to the needs of the times, and how systems of thought have to be interpreted in connection with their peculiar purposes. The old Indian literature to which by analogy Cameral designation has been suggested may still be of value. Let us consider its skilful adaptation of means to ends, its logical deduction of rules of conduct from its socio-religious hypothesis, and its attempt to combine ethical, political and economic purposes in individual and social action. The attempt to view their teachings in their natural perspective and to interpret them in relation to our times as well as theirs might help in the dawn of the brighter day for which we all wait and hope. (Aiyanger, 1949, op. pp. 175-76)

According to Aiyanger, the following aspects of ancient Indian state policies, as delineated in Arthaśāstra, are likely to be relevant for the mixed economy of present day India:

i) In the Arthaśāstra state, freedom and regulations were intermixed. (p. 156)

ii) Large scale undertakings were taken over by the state management but scope was left for small enterprises to compete with state enterprises. (pp. 156-57)

iii) State factories did not displace private enterprises, nor penalize them (p. 157).

iv) Outside the spheres of state monopoly there was no attempt to compete with or restrain the private producer. (p. 157)

v) In the interest of the whole community, there were state regulations as regards interest, wages, profits and rent. But the state’s position was that private liberty should be the rules except where it had to be restrained and regulated either in the interest of the common people or to maintain stability. (p. 157)

vi) Emphasis was laid on precision, simplification, detail and transparency as regards all state affairs, e.g.,

a) All state orders should be in writing.

b) Power and duties of different departments should be clearly demarcated.

c) Salaries of all public servants should be paid promptly.

d) Accurate data should be available as regards land surveys, fiscal collections, types of consumption etc. (p. 165)

Notwithstanding the difference in political system, the above six features of the Arthaśāstra state are not unsuitable for present day India. If properly adapted and implemented, they are likely to streamline the functioning of the various economic policies of the government today and remove many hurdles on the path of successful implementation of these policies.

There are, however, various obstacles on the path of unravelling the truth inherent in ancient Indian literature. Unlike the study of the west, it is  not at all easy to dig out clear-cut and uncontroversial ideas from the vast body of ancient Indian literature. The Greeks were well known for historical writings. The tradition was carried on during the Roman and subsequent periods. Unfortunately, we do not have such coherent record of ancient Indian history. The otherwise rich Sanskrit literature of ancient India is overwhelmingly deficient in chronological history. To quote Kosambi:

India has virtually no historical records worth the name......... In India there is only vague popular tradition, with very little documentation above the level of myth and legend. We cannot reconstruct anything like a complete list of kings. Sometimes whole dynasties have been forgotten. What little is left is so nebulous that virtually no dates can be determined for any Indian personality till the Muslim period ...... Certainly, no ancient Indian history is possible with the detailed accuracy of a history of Rome or Greece. (Kosambi, 1981, pp. 9-10)

Information regarding ancient Indian conditions are scattered in the Vedas, Purānas, the epics (Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata), the Dharmaśāstras, the Dharmasūtras, the Jātakas and Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya (no other Arthaśāstra has yet been discovered). Excavations and inscriptions are other sources of information. Greek historical writers like Scylax, (c. 509 B. C.), Hecataeus, Herodotus, Ctesias, (survives only in abridged version by Photius), Nearchus, (survives in works of Strabo and Arrian), Onesicritus, Diogenes, Kleitarchus, and, especially, Megasthenes (fragments of his ‘Indika’ survives in the works of Strabo, Arrian, Diodorus and Plinius) provide valuable information regarding ancient Indian history along with its social, political and economic conditions. (Śāstri, K. A. Nilakanta (ed.) pp. 82-90). But it is very difficult to piece together the fragments of information obtained from diverse sources and construct a coherent economic history of ancient India.

In spite of these problems associated with the paucity of historical records, painstaking study and research are likely to bring out many valuable facts of ancient Indian economy. Max Müller rightly observed (quoted in Samaddar, 1922, pp. 4-5): Depend upon it, there are enough of fields and pastures anew, for you to work ......... you would be, not only unearthing the glories of your mother country, but you would be advancing towards higher points and nobler aims.

In the present study, we concentrate on a particular piece of ancient Indian literature, viz.,   Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. Many problems associated with the study of ancient Indian literature are likely to come up on the path of serious research on Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. But one advantage in this case is that, unlike much important ancient Indian literature, the entire Arthaśāstra is coherent, objective and analytical and is not shrouded in mystery, metaphors and myths. The matter-of-fact presentation, practical and realistic approach, simplicity of style and freedom from utopia make it most suitable for analytical study.

Discovery of the manuscript of Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya by Shyamaśāstry and resurgence of Indian Nationalism stimulated the study of Arthaśāstra during the first half of the twentieth century, but, unfortunately, many of the works were marred by parochial views and wrong interpretation. To quote Aiyanger:

The discovery and developments of Arthaśāstra studies in our generation have coincided with the resurgence of Indian Nationalism. While it has stimulated the study of the subject, it has also endangered the correct perception of its teachings, affiliations and methods. Incorrect notions gained ground and have become almost ‘academic myths.’ The attitude of Arthaśāstra to absolutism has been understood in a haze created by wrong interpretation and by the resurrection of legends, which grew round Chanaky. ......... Its position in the orthodox canon, its relation to Dharmaśāstra, its attitude to the fundamental aims of life (as conceived in Ancient India), its ‘secularism’, its adaptability to environment and circumstances, its conception of law and the legislative power of the state and its ethics have been incorrectly grasped ....... Much of the error may be traced to overlooking the study of the background of Indian life, which is common to both Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśāstra. (Aiyanger, 1949, Preface, pp. XII-XIII)

In this study, we take up a specific aspect of the economic policies prescribed in Arthaśāstra, viz. the price control mechanism. The choice springs from two basic reasons. First, very little light has been focused on this aspect in the existing literature on Arthaśāstra. Second, the price control mechanism, as prescribed in Arthaśāstra, appears to have some relevance for India today. The failure of price policy during the plan period in India is mainly due to the fact that it was framed in isolation without giving due regard to the legal and administrative set up necessary for its success. As a striking contrast, the price policy as prescribed in Arthaśāstra was inexorably associated with the legal and