(Online Course) Public Administration for IAS Mains Exams
Topic: Evolution of Indian Administration: Kautilya’s Arthashastra
The machinery of the government designed in Kautilya’s Arthashastra does not closely resemble our modem-day polity, it reflects clearly some of the principles which form a part of the science of Public Administration.
Principle of Unity of Command
To begin with, the principle of unity of command is reflected in the fact that the king is the sole source of authority. All his ministers and state servants derive their authority from him and are removable or punishable by him. The principle was so well developed by Kautilya that it appears as if he is suggesting that the king was God himself. He says: “Divine punishment also falls of those who treat kings with disrespect/?” Though Kautilya advocates one-man rule, the ruler is by no means an autocrat. A democratic concept enters in his analysis when he makes the ruler responsible to the public. The element of public accountability is clear when he says that it is the duty of the king to protect his subjects and thus when he (the king) performs this duty, he goes to heaven.”
Division of Work
However, sovereignty is possible only with appropriate help or assistance. A single wheel, said Kautilya, cannot move. Hence the king employs several ministers and divides the work of the government among the several departments and even determines the workload of each of the major departments. This bears a certain resemblance to the modem-day rules of business. Kautilya discusses the workload for each department. Kautilya describes in minutest details the practices of agriculture, ascertaining all prospects such as water, season, plant varieties and every imaginable task related to agriculture as the responsibility of this department.
Principle of Coordination
The principle of coordination is a natural corollary of this division of labour. The principal coordinator will be the king himself, taking the help of his trusted council of ministers.
Job Classification
The practice of job classification also appears to have attained a high degree of sophistication during Kautilya’s times. Special tests were prescribed for holding special types of jobs. In each department, the workload was divided among special officers. For instance, Book II of the Arthashastra describes the duties for nearly thirty adhyaksas. The adhyaksas are classified into four categories: (1) those in charge of state goods; (2) those in charge of state establishments; (3) those in charge of mining and industry and (4) those who control trade.” Classification on the basis of jobs is made in every department. Job classification by itself ensures the presence of another important principle and that is of hierarchy. The highest offices of the state are referred to as amatuas,” Three grades of amatyas are recognized, the highest, the middle and the lowest, according to the degree of qualifications possessed.” Another name for an executive officer is yukta, one who is employed or appointed. There are yukta, upayukta and iaipurusa in every department.” Of these, the yukta is obviously the head of the department, the upayukta is a subordinate officer, of whom there may be more than one in a department, while the tatpurusas are the servants of the lowest category.” At yet another point in the Arthashastra, the hierarchy under an adhyaksa is described. An adhyaksa has under him a lekhaka (clerk), a rupadarsaka (inspector of coins), a samkhyayaka (accountant), a nivigrahaka (keeper of the balance), in charge of actual goods and an uttaradhyaksa who appears to be a sort of supervisor to keep a watch over the activities of the subordinate staff.
Planning and Budgeting
Elements of planning and budgeting of expenditure are shown in the budget and accounts under fifteen heads. All the different sources of income are together called the ayasarira (the body of income). Revenue was obtained chiefly from agriculture and other taxes, state trade and state goods. The body of expenditure was called vyayasarira. The state exercised a rigid control over economic planning. However, planning during that time had a different connotation from what it has today. Today, the state fixes a plan for economic development spread over a certain number of years, lays down priorities in the matter of development, allocates resources in men and capital in accordance with these priorities and watches over the progress of the plan in the various fields from year to year. In the Arthashastra, we do not find these phenomena. Whatever planning there is, appears only in connection with the preparation of the budget and the fixing of the quantum of revenue expected from each type of economic activity, with control exercised mainly to ensure the recovery of this revenue.” The emphasis in modern planning is on development while that in the Arthashastra is on control.