6.3 UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACHES The Greek philosophers discussed the principle of virtue-ethics but did not discuss any action-oriented principles of ethics. They emphasized the building of a person’s good character and believed that good conduct would naturally follow. According to both Chang (1987) and Choi (1989), Han Feitzu (280-233 BCE) advanced the legalistic approach to ethics but he discarded the moralistic approach of Confucius.11 Carroll and Buchholtz (2003, p 212) explain the virtue ethics, ‘Action-oriented principles focus on doing. Virtue ethics emphasizes being.’ The assumption, of course, is that the actions of a virtuous person will also be virtuous. Traditional ethical principles such as utilitarianism, rights, and justice focus on the question, ‘What should I do?’
Combined Moralist and Action-oriented Approaches: Kautilya believed that these approaches were complementary and not substitutes. He emphasized the role of the moralist approach in character building. However, Kautilya was not naïve to ignore the possibility that some people might not follow dharmic values voluntarily. He suggested action-oriented approaches, such as, (i) adopting legalistic approach, that is, having contract and property rules (see Chapter 16), tort laws and traffic codes (discussed in Chapter 17), accounting rules and regulations (see Chapter 9), and having rewards and punishments for better compliance (Chapter 11 provides an in-depth analysis), (ii) devising an organizational design that reduced scope for conflict of interest situations (see Chapter 9). The following table captures his ideas:
Limitation of Auditing, Rules and Regulations in Checking Fraud: It may be pointed out that Kautilya was fully aware of the limitations of rules, regulations and auditing in preventing corrupt practices. He recognized that a good system of bookkeeping and auditing was necessary but not sufficient in ensuring ethical practices. In other words, an accounting method, no matter how good it is (even GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), will not defeat ‘aggressive and creative’ (another name for unscrupulous) accounting practices.
He believed that not only were the principles of accounting important but also the ethics of those who practice them. That is, principles were only as good as the people who practiced them. He (p 133-134) stated: ‘Some teachers say that oppression by the Treasurer is worse because he harasses by finding fault with whatever is done and levies fines [which he pockets?]. The Chancellor, on the other hand, cannot do much harm since he is supervised by a [audit] bureau and can enjoy only what is legitimately assigned to him (8.4).’
Kautilya disagreed. He explained, ‘The Treasurer can only appropriate what is brought into the treasury by others. But the Chancellor collects his own revenue first and then he may collect the king’s revenue or even let it go to ruin; he can do as he pleases with other people’s property (8.4).’
These statements imply that Kautilya believed that independent audits were necessary but were not sufficient in eliminating financial misappropriations. He noted that the Chancellor, who was responsible for collecting revenue from the countryside, was audited and yet could cause a lot more financial loss than the Treasurer who was not audited. He urged the king to make every effort to appoint incorruptible individuals to such key positions.
He (p 286) identified several kinds of officials who may cause loss to the Treasury. Two types may provide some glimpse into the depth of his insights. According to him, an official who caused loss might be arrogant ‘about his learning, his wealth or the support he gets from highly placed persons’. The phrase ‘support he gets from highly placed persons’ implies the potential for abuse from undue access to high officials. This is indeed an old problem. Similarly, an official may have greed, ‘which prompts him to use false balances, weights or measures, or to make false assessments and calculations.’
He developed contract and property rules and tort laws, which did not weaken ethical conduct. Among other recommendations proposed were measures covering the royal succession, and laws against sexual harassment and child labour.
There are a few noteworthy points. First, dharma-based approach was considered the most efficient for bringing peace and prosperity. He believed that even the most comprehensive set of rules and regulations were not enough in checking greed and eliminating the potential for fraudulent practices. Secondly, all these approaches/ measures were considered as complements to ethics-based approach and not substitutes. He warned that if a majority of the people became unethical, no other measure would work and the system would collapse. Thirdly, Kautilya insisted on having laws that were ethics-based and promoted ethical conduct.12 Kautilya’s contributions are truly unique among the ancient thinkers.
SUMMARY Socrates asked the question ‘how should a man live?’ but neither he, nor Plato or Aristotle, offered any substantive or satisfactory answer to that. Adam Smith was certainly a sophisticated thinker, but his ideas were based more on feelings than on any deep theory of choice.13 Despite having strong intentions, Adam Smith died before he could accomplish the task of any meaningful intersection of ethics and economics. His commercial man of the Wealth of Nations and the benevolent man of The Theory of Moral Sentiments never came in contact with each other.
Not only was the Socratic question asked more than a thousand years earlier in India, but also were the virtues of truthfulness, compassion, tolerance and non-violence identified and recommended to create heaven on earth.14 Detailed list of moral codes was formulated to help the individual lead a happy and virtuous life.15 Kautilya was way ahead of the Greeks and Adam Smith in offering both moralitybased and action-oriented approaches for eliciting desirable social conduct. Moreover, he believed that ethical conduct promoted prosperity whereas the Greeks thought that prosperity was a threat to the ethical fabric of a society. However, according to Kautilya, no amount of rules and regulations or auditing can prevent unethical behaviour. He suggested many other policies, which, although not explored here, also reflect his concern for ethical values. For example, he (p 321) wrote, ‘Village headman shall be responsible for preventing cruelty to animals (3.10).’
7
Ethical, Efficient and Energetic Decision-makers
The virtuous one despises prosperity attained through ignominy. The bounds of good conduct should never be crossed. Truth and charity are the roots of righteousness. Righteousness is the ornament of all.
— Kautilya’s Sutras
Traditionally a king was like a paid public servant. It was considered his moral duty to enrich the people, administer justice, formulate sound policies and ensure their effective implementation. This, in turn, required that all the decision makers—the reigning king, his advisers and other public servants—must be ethical. Kautilya (p 119-123) described the constituent elements of a state and argued that the king was the most important element of a state. If the king was ethical and energetic, other constituents and public were likely to acquire the same attributes.
Kautilya expected the king to behave like a father towards his people. He should enrich them and protect them. The king should be a loyal servant to his royal public. He argued that freedom from foreign rule was absolutely essential to prosperity and, therefore, a king must use every means to protect independence. He provided detailed instructions to the king as to how he should manage internal and external affairs. He advised the king to be benevolent to his public but must be prudent in dealing with other nations. These are discussed in Section 7.1. He advised the reigning king that he should make sure that his successor was also ethical. He specified an elaborate and rigorous ethical education programme for the prince. This is presented in Section 7.2. Conclusion is provided in Section 7.3.
7.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ON ETHICAL CONDUCT Kautilya broadened the practice of ethics from what was good or bad (for an individual) to what was in public interest vis-à-vis private interest. He assignined ethics the key role of facilitating liberation from poverty, along with the traditional one of salvation, from the birth-death-rebirth cycle. He changed the focus of ethical debates from ri
ght and wrong to allow discussion on conflicts of public and private interests. He was a sophisticated thinker as noted by Ray. He (1999, p 107-108) remarks, ‘We must also not forget the context in which the Arthashastra was written. Kautilya was trying to create, almost single-handedly, “order out of chaos, peace out of war, a public state out of a corrupt one”. That is why his ideas were extremely complex. On the one hand, he had suggested the use of all evil, cruel and wicked methods, while on the other, he was obsessed by the idea of creation of a clean administrative system.’
Referring to the king, Kautilya observed: ‘In the happiness of his subjects lies his 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 (1.19)’. The above statement contains the following four possibilities:
• If the policies/activities served both the public interest and the king’s interest, then there was no conflict and king should pursue such activities.
• If the activities were against both public interest and the king’s interest, then too there was no conflict and the king did not face any dilemma.
• Some of the policies/activities might be in public interest but against the king’s interest. There was conflict of interest but he advisedthekingtoprotect/promotepublicinterestandsacrifice his own interest.
• Ifthepolicies/activitieswerenotinpublicinterestbutwereinthe king’s interest. There was a conflict of interest and the king was advised not to pursue his own interest at the expense of public interest.
Kautilya maintained that, to a large extent, there was no conflict between a king’s own interest or his moral duty and public interest since he considered the king’s happiness and those of his subjects as perfect complements. However, if there was any conflict among them, public interest should take precedence over his own interest. Kautilya kept the traditional moral and immoral distinction. He was aware of various combinations in this regard. His conceptual framework, which is implicit in his Arthashastra, has the following eight possible cases.
Table 7.1: Moral, Immoral, Private and Public Interests Moral (M) Immoral (MC)
S SC S SC P Case I: Case III: Case V: Case VII:
M ∩S∩P M∩SC∩P MC∩S∩P MC∩SC∩P PC Case II: Case IV: Case VI: Case VIII:
M∩S∩PC M∩SC∩PC MC∩S∩PC MC∩SC∩PC M=Dharmic (Moral), MC=Adharmic (Immoral), S=Public interest, SC=Against public interest, P=private interest and PC=against private interest.
Kautilya divided these eight cases into two broad groups: actions which promoted public interest (Cases I, II, V and VI) were to be encouraged and actions, which harmed public interest (Cases III, IV, VII and VIII) even if sanctioned on religion-based moral grounds, were to be discouraged. The above framework helps in shedding light on some of the debates on Kautilya’s ideas relating to ethics.
Case 1: M ∩S∩P = King’s Moral Duty and His Own Interest Coincide with Public Interest. Kautilya advised the king to promote the well being of his subjects since that fulfilled his (a) moral duty as well as served (b) his self-interest.
King’s Moral Duty: Kautilya (p 145) stated, ‘A rajarishi [a king, wise like a sage] is one who: has self-control, having conquered the [inimical temptations] of the senses, cultivates the intellect by association with elders, is ever active in promoting the security and welfare of the people, endears himself to his people by enriching them and doing good to them and avoids daydreaming, capriciousness, falsehood and extravagance (1.7).’ He added, ‘A rajarishi shall always respect those councilors andpurohitas who warn him of the dangers of transgressing the limits of good conduct, reminding him sharply (as with a goad) of the times prescribed for various duties and caution him even when he errs in private (1.8).’ He (p 142) asserted, ‘Government by Rule of Law, which alone can guarantee security of life and welfare of the people, is, in turn, dependent on the self-discipline of the king (1.5).’
Leadership: Kautilya wanted the king to be a role model, earn respect and rule through leadership and not through authority. He (p 147) wrote, ‘If the king is energetic, his subjects will be equally energetic. If he is slack and lazy in performing his duties the subjects will also be lax and, thereby, eat into his wealth. Besides, a lazy king will easily fall into the hands of his enemies. Hence, the king should himself always be energetic (1.19).’ He (p 121) stated, ‘A king endowed with the ideal personal qualities enriches the other elements when they are less than perfect (6.1).’ He (p 123) added, ‘Whatever character the king has, the other elements also come to have the same (8.1).’ Thus, according to Kautilya, a king must have a good knowledge of philosophy but should not be an idle philosopher or a dictator and rather, should be an impartial, benevolent, far-sighted, disciplined and energetic doer.
Moderation: Kautilya did not mention Aristotle’s golden mean, but he and many thinkers before him did suggest moderation.1 For example, they wanted the king to avoid both excessive indulgence and complete austerity in pleasures. He (p 145) wrote, ‘There is no need for such a king to deprive himself of all sensual pleasures and lead a life of total austerity so long as he does not infringe his dharma or harms his own material well-being (1.7).’
King’s Enlightened Self-interest: Kautilya reminded the king that his hold on power depended on public support, which had to be earned through good deeds and administration of justice.
• Public Support to a King was Tied to His Being Just: Kautilya
(p 573) observed, ‘When a strong but unjust king is attacked, his subjects will not come to his help but will either topple him or go over to the attacker. On the other hand, when a weak but just king is attacked, his subjects will not only come to his help but also follow him until death (7.5).’
• Public Support to a King Linked to Economic Development: Kautilya (p 159) argued, ‘When a people are impoverished, they become greedy; when they are greedy, they become disaffected; when disaffected, they either go to the enemy or kill their ruler themselves (7.5).’ He suggested, ‘Therefore, the king shall not act in such a manner as would cause impoverishment, greed or disaffection among the people; if however, they do appear, he shall immediately take remedial measures (7.5).’ It may be noted that a little vague but a definite distinction between positive and normative economic analysis is discernible in the above statements.
Case II: M ∩S∩PC = Morally Right, in Public Interest but Against King’s Own Interest. According to Kangle (2000, part III, p 92), E H Johnston believed that Kautilya paid only lip service to a king’s moral duty and relentlessly advanced a king’s self-interest. Kangle (2000, part III, p 92) quotes E H Johnston: ‘According to the Dharamshastra, the institution of kingship exists for the maintenance of order and the preservation of the structure of society, the Arthashastra, no doubt, pays lip service to this ideal, but the essential doctrine underlying the entire work is that a king’s sole pre-occupation is his own selfaggrandizement and that in its pursuit, he should be restricted by no considerations except those of enlightened self-interest. The originality of the Arthashastra lies, in my view, not in the conception of this principle which was probably already in the air, but in the relentless logic with which all its implications are worked out.’
Kangle (part III, pp 92-94) refutes Johnston’s assertion that Kautilya ignored a king’s moral duty (as specified by the Dharmashastras, ie. scriptures) of protecting his subjects. It is claimed here that both of these views are incomplete representations of Kautilya’s ideas. Since Johnston’s claim that the king pursues only his own interest, excludes case II, which urges the king to make sacrifices because that is his moral duty and Kangle’s refutation ignores case V, which is in public interest (as well as the king’s interest) but goes against established moral norms.
Recommendations Regarding Welfare Programmes: According to Kautilya, it was the moral duty of a king to commit himself fully to the upliftment of his public. He (p 377) explained, ‘A king who observes
his duty of protecting his people justly and according to law will go to heaven, whereas one who does not protect them or inflicts unjust punishment will not (3.1.42).’ He suggested a comprehensive package of welfare programmes. (i) According to him, a king should take care of his subjects like a guardian (see Chapter 8). (ii) He recommended the provision of a safety net to the poor (discussed in Chapter 12). (iii) According to Kautilya, the king must help the people during calamities, like a famine (Chapter 13 contains a detailed discussion on preventive and remedial measures). Kautilya (p 128) believed, ‘It is the duty of the king to protect the people from all calamities (4.3).’ (iv) He suggested helping the helpless in legal matters (see Chapter 15).
Case III: M ∩SC∩P = Morally Right, in King’s Interest but Against Public Interest. This is an interesting case since the king was discouraged to undertake such activities, which harmed public interest. For example, Kautilya was against installing a lazy or wicked son on the throne even if the king wanted to, since it was not in public interest. He (p 169) wrote, ‘Unless there are dangers in it, succession of the eldest son is praiseworthy. An only son, if he is wicked, shall not [under any circumstances] be installed on the throne. A king with many sons acts in the best interests [of the kingdom] only if he removes a wicked one from succession (1.17).’ Clearly Kautilya gave priority to public interest over tradition and king’s interest.
Case IV: M ∩SC∩PC = Morally Correct but Against Both Public and Private Interests. Kautilya did not want anyone to become a monk even if that was considered morally right at the time since that was against both public interest and a king’s interest. It was against public interest since the family of that person would suffer and would require public assistance and was also against the king’s interest, since national security might be affected adversely if many young adults became monks. He (p 405) wrote, ‘No one shall renounce his marital life [to become an ascetic] without providing for his wife and sons (2.1).’2
Kautilya- the True Founder of Economics Page 13
