[Request: अर्थशास्त्र related] Any pointers to a published review of Mital (2000): Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra Revisited?

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Namaste, 

I would be grateful if anyone could point me to a published review of Mital, Surendra Nath. (2000). Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra Revisited. 

"In This Book S.N. Mital Examines In Detail And Refutes The Views Held By Many Scholars That The Text Of Kautiliya Arthasastra Was Not Written By A Single Author And That The Date Of Its Composition Cannot Be Attributed To A Single Century. The Book Has Been Primarily Written As A Reply To T.R. Trautmann'S Kautilya And The Arthasastra, In Which He Tried To Prove, With The Help Of Statistics, That The Arthasastra Was A Compilation Of Writings By Three Or Four Authors, Edited By Kautilya. This View Was Based On An Analysis Of The Frequency Of The Use Of Ca (And) And Va (Or) In Different Portions Of The Arthasastra. Trautmann Also Seems To Have Used This Argument To Maintain That The Arthasastra Was Composed Sometime After The Second Century. Mital Tries To Show, Through His Own Collection Of Statistics, That Trautmann'S Thesis Is Misconceived And That Va Was More Frequently Used In Those Portions Of The Text Where The Subject Treated Is Primarily Political, And Ca Was More Frequently Used Where The Discussion Is Primarily Theoretical, And So This Difference In The Frequency Of Use Of Va And Ca Does Not Indicate Different Authors."

Thanks in advance. 

Best,

Megh

“Simson’s reasons for excising the Bhagavadgītā were thus very weak. … He had no evidence for these “redactions.”” [Adluri, Bagchee (2014):282]. Cited in https://meghk.wordpress.com/2018/08/03/courtesy-ananya-vajpeyi-is-her-2017-02-20-article-an-example-of-scroll-in-carrying-fake-news-information/

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Kautilya: The True Founder of Economics (2014)

"This book seeks to highlight the monumental contribution of Kautilya to economic thought. The Arthashastra explicitly promotes the goals of both artha (material wellbeing) and dharma (righteous behavior) as a consistent whole and repudiates any deviation from them. A serious attempt is made here to revise the currently accepted history of economic thought. It is claimed that presentation of Kautilya's original contributions should succeed in dispelling the deepseated myth that economics originated during the eighteenth century and Adam Smith was the founder of economics. A claim is only as good as the arguments it stands on. For the first time, strong arguments are provided by the author as to why Kautilya should be considered as the founder of economics... . It is also argued that Kautilya's The Arthashastra may be correctly designated as Dharmanomics: economics built on an ethical foundation, projecting economics and economic policy in a more meaningful and socially desirable perspective. The book also shows that the Hindu civilization is not averse to economic growth."

KAUTILYA on Moral Hazard, Poverty and Systemic Risk (2019)

" The first Population Census in the world. Statistical Economics, Mathematical Economics. The factoring in of Moral Hazard, the question of Ethics, acknowledging the fact that economics is about people. Including Systemic Risk into accounting for costs and profits and alleviating poverty. These are some of Kautilyas observations... . They are all valid today, for the modern world. According to Abraham Seidenberg (1962), mathematics originated in India earlier than Babylonia, Egypt or Greece. Sidney Weintraub argues that the image of economics in the western world changed as the image of mathematics changed but without realising that the image of mathematics in the west might have changed with the change in the theology/philosophy of the church. CK Raju points out that theology or philosophy did not change constantly in the Indian subcontinent. Mathematical measurements are pre-Vedic here, beginning with the early Indus Valley inhabitants which have continued through generations. Kautilya was the first economist who established economics as a separate discipline, developed a score of concepts and understood economy as a system with its inter-linked elements. Kautilyas Arthashastra contains two parts: the exchange theory and the conflict theory but both use mathematics to enhance clarity of expression and statistical analysis for arriving at the best possible policy-decisions under risky situations and evaluations afterwards. This book argues why Kautilya is relevant to modern-day policy-makers and why Ethics should be a part of the Indian education content."

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

IIMA - Economic Sutra: Ancient Indian Antecedents to Economic Thought (21 Aug 2019)

"A general perception exists that ancient Indian literature on economic matters is fatalistic and an admixture of sacred and secular thoughts. Economic Sutra provides a comprehensive perspective on the elements of Indian economic thought leading up to and after the Arthashastra. Economic Sutra is a perception-correction initiative to distil the Indian mind in the realm of economic thoughts and behaviour as brought out by the ancient Indian authors. It highlights the broader spread of economic ideas both prior to and sometime after Kautilya, giving insights into the purpose, actions and vision of our forefathers."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/9d726992-c779-4858-8e24-911c64969fdb%40googlegroups.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

I am surprised by all these papers treating Arthasastra as a treatise of Economics. In my view, it is more a manual of Public Administration, Foreign Affairs and Military affairs. Very little of "Economics" is encountered in the book.

Artha in the name refers to the wealth of kings - ie kingdoms. The other name of the book is more revealing: Dandaniti. 

Regards 

N Siva Senani 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfK%3DEUa_4j9rQRuFbAR7fQmPo3G4o50c6DEhHydYcvujQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I agree with you, Sivasenani-ji.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZMhV_ChUpftCeS2%2BYLr4zKytn2ehX55uFO2e0qCV1zkNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Without disagreeing with the view of what one might see अर्थशास्त्र to be "more" about (for instance: Public Administration, Foreign Affairs and Military Affairs--all of which it most certainly is about, and perhaps significantly so), however little (relatively speaking) of "Economics" it might contain seems to have interested at least some fairly qualified* individuals. In the spirit of being open to perspectives from any domain (so long as it is rigorous and credible), here is one more perspective, published in Indian Economic Review in 1996: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29793735?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

* Balbir S Sihag is a Professor of Economics. He received a Masters degree in Economics from Panjab University, Chandigarh. He was awarded an UGC scholarship and was Merit selected to the Indian Economic Service. He received PhD in Economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and was Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts for twenty-two years and is now Professor Emeritus of Economics. Satish Y. Deodhar is the author of the bestselling book Day to Day Economics. He teaches economics at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebwwE1aC%3Dvcz4uNa_FONKXqA0E1nVDa%3DM6HChZzPPXsdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanatha g.s]

Please order this after availing other offers.

Appa.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfK%3DEUa_4j9rQRuFbAR7fQmPo3G4o50c6DEhHydYcvujQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Listen to Prof. Satish Deodhar talks about, Economic Sutra - Ancient Indian Antecedents to Economic Thought by PODCAST FROM IIMA on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.com/iimapodcast/prof-satish-deodhar-talks-about-economic-sutra-ancient-indian-antecedents-to-economic-thought

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

[K S Kannan]

Another glorious example of the havoc wrought by mistranslations.

Kautalya has clearly defined what is artha.

So comic, were it not also tragic , that

long ago there was a central page article in the Indian Express,

the opening sentence of which had a remark to the effect that

"though Kautilya has called his work Arthashastra,

he has failed to confine himself to Economics

and mixed up so many extraneous things" !

Obviously, the author has not looked into the most important final chapter

(designated Tantrayukti, the metalinguistic section)

which opens with the definition of artha.

And yes, someone in our own list sought to know the meaning of artha,

- asking which to choose between two synonymous expressions

("six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other" as they say)!

We may well nigh reinterpret the celebrated statement of Sankara

as verily applying to semantics ! :

artham anartham bhAvaya nityam.

(All that is said above is by no means meant to deny or decry

the robust economic thought in Artha-sastra.)

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 10:10 AM Megh Kalyanasundaram <kalyanasun...@gmail.com> wrote:

Listen to Prof. Satish Deodhar talks about, Economic Sutra - Ancient Indian Antecedents to Economic Thought by PODCAST FROM IIMA on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.com/iimapodcast/prof-satish-deodhar-talks-about-economic-sutra-ancient-indian-antecedents-to-economic-thought

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/d12d88ca-df0a-4199-b40e-95b97b9fc32d%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Your observations about the IE piece, in particular, is (imho) revealing, Professor. Your last line and the point on Tantrayukti clearly resonate. 

Generally speaking, an author might or might not indicate what her/his work is primarily about. 

Even when s/he does so, it is possible that when seen from the lens/es which the author has not designated as primary, one could find more in it that might be useful. 

It is perhaps not at all uncommon that a work is seen only from a particular (or a subset of all possible) lenses, which by itself is not an illegitimate pursuit, if rigorous.  

Yet, it could be problematic at times when a text corpus is reduced to what remains when seen only through one lens (or a subset; I am thinking of 'caste' for example), particularly so (in my view atleast) when the lens deployed is different from what the author has designated as primary. 

Dr. Deodhar's effort to read "economic" concepts in Sanskrit texts (not limited to अर्थशास्त्र), whilst not unprecedented, is something I found useful, in ways more than one. By way of one example, his identification of some attributions to non-Indic people/sources when there are Indic precedents is something I found revealing and instructive.  

Best,

Megh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7BYmfoPV9xVFZ_WGnWjNXUMJJuthwddOoWrHbytr7VGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

My essential idea is,

when an author has declared unequivocally what his project is,

to make disparaging remarks about his work without reckoning first what his avowed objective was

is patently wrong.

Of course, one can legitimately make a study of a text from various angles otherwise,

without losing sight of the above.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHftMO1qA0N7YNqcxbjTfCNEu%3DRhS9-gAt6hdor_y3%3DV1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

In the original post of Sri Megh Kalyanasundsram of Aug 2019 there were certain aspects which triggered thoughts that Kautilya was misunderstood. For instance:

"It is also argued that Kautilya's The Arthashastra may be correctly designated as Dharmanomics: economics built on an ethical foundation, projecting economics and economic policy in a more meaningful and socially desirable perspective."

"Kautilya was the first economist who established economics as a separate discipline."

Today, I listened to the podcast and was surprised to learn that Prof. Deodhar is aware of Prof. Kangle's work on Arthasastra. Also in the podcast, Prof. Deodhar did not make objectionable remarks, beyond describing Meghadutam as an "epic" poem of Kalidasa. So it does not sound right to dismiss this work so perfunctorily.

In these kind of talks (at 16 min, the audio was considerably longer than an 'elevator pitch') one expects to find the highlights and so might be justified in believing the contents of the podcast to be the highlights, selected by none other than the author himself. Let me list the examples given by the author in the talk. He talks about the principle of taxation, quoting Mahabharata (tax people in the way that a bee draws nectar from a flower) and Kalidasa (the Raghus take taxes, like the Sun takes moisture, only to return it manifold for the welfare of people); he quotes Panini and Kautilya talking about interest (according to the author, interest is viewed as a sin in the Western culture, for instance as represented by Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice", whereas it was accepted in the Indian culture and this shows that ancient India was superior in its understanding of the time value of money); that Kautilya recognized that interest should be proportional to risk; and that Kautilya argued for lower import duties on scarce items; that India recognized earth as the source of wealth and not wealth itself, unlike the West. Even, if all of this were correct, it sounds more like a compilation of mention of all aspects connected to Economics rather than show the outline of an Economic theory or settled positions on matters of Economics. And some of them are not accurate. For instance, take the claim of Prof. Deodhar that land by itself was never considered wealth and the first two sutras of the fifteenth adhikarana that Prof. Kannan referred to in his post: 

मनुष्याणां वृत्तिरर्थः, मनुष्यवती भूमिरित्यर्थः ।१।।

तस्याः पृथिव्या लाभपालनोपायः शास्त्रमर्थशास्त्रमिति ।२।।

Having cited an inaccurate one, one should also cite an accurate and important claim. in 2.11, Kautilya lays down interest rates for four different activities - सपादपणा धर्म्या मासवृद्धिः पणशतस्य, पञ्चपणा व्यावहारिकी, दशपणा कान्तारगाणाम्, विंशतिपणा सामुद्राणाम्। (1.25% pm is the fair interest rate; 5% for trade; 10% for those passing through forests and 20% for those faring on the sea). This is indeed a valid observation because the principle of return being proportional to risk is a fundamental insight in Economics and that is clearly recorded by Kautilya; further, this has not been highlighted earlier, to the knowledge of the present reviewer knows. This shows the advantage of practitioners of different fields examining the ancient texts. In contrast to the focus of Prof. Deodhar, in the index of Prof. Kangle's translation, there is no entry for "interest" - so unimportant was the topic of interest to the index-maker.

Still one is left with the impression that this book does not make a solid case for Indian origin of Economics. As a contrast, if one were to attempt to write a book describing Panini as the father of Linguistics, one would be able to show both theories and settled positions in Panini and Patanjali and in many cases even trace the development from Patanjali to Saussure/Bloomfield to Chomsky to the present state. In sum, yes, "The Economic Sutra" is an attempt in the right direction; but the sample presented neither shows much promise nor entices a study of the book itself.

Regards

Senani

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7q97ufBow2AfH52itL-2sohOxhG5Lban0hxXg4dMciVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/TwawZSd6fpI/JddbDKIwAgAJ is the post that contains excerpts referred to as "certain aspects" in Dr. Nori's Jan 12, 2020 2:09 PM note. 

These excerpts are, as specified (and hyperlinked in the original post) from Dr. Balbir Singh Sihag's 2014 and 2019 books. 

Megh

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZPQJp5vz2CobfV%3DEqQqrGdmdy8n3cU9mQz00pFY9s0eKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

Thank you, Sir, for pointing out my confusion. And my apologies for conflating authors. Still, my recent post was based only the podcast and not the earlier posts - so it stays unaltered.

Regards 

Senani

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHcPCa7WyidSQSwp8s%2BWc2gz4Rvee3xX__OGy9eBOyBNPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

I am not aware of who else has read Dr. Sihag's two books and Dr. Deodhar's book. 

The depth of Dr. Sihag's comparative reading of The Wealth of Nations and अर्थशास्त्र  is, in my limited view, without peer and precedent (and I am happy to be be corrected). 

Aspects of Dr. Sihag and Dr. Deodhar's work that seek to question 'received wisdom' in their respective domains, critiquing blindspots in those (broadly speaking, eurocentric) narratives by citing Indic precedents is something I find of value, irrespective of whether or not they are advancing a unique 'theory', per se. 

Constructive criticism can surely go a long way in ensuring greater precision and accuracy without losing sight of original contributions however incremental it might seem to anyone. 

Megh

  

 

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

I am in agreement with you that one ought not to lose sight of original contributions, however incremental they might be. I hope I have not lost sight of those. 

When there are competing demands on one's time, one is forced to choose and that is why I had to form a view on whether to read this book or not. 

Regards 

Senani

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfnCArGwCgy9P%3DMKK2t33q62tuHYUX4vgSmpTfa4eHywA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

I am in agreement with your point "In sum, yes, "The Economic Sutra" is an attempt in the right direction...", Dr. Nori. 

Each person might, justifiably so, have a different appetite for what is being offered by Dr. Sihag and Dr. Deodhar's books. I was happy to learn whatever  they had to offer and I might be happier to be pointed to books that are better than these, if they exist, in specifically what they have set out to do. 

Sincerely,

Megh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZP1MAygt4O66qyeQXpTQGwUXSg-T_pkGM%2BFKBkkKWASXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

I thank Dr. Nori for actually citing what I merely referred to in the Artha-sastra.

While the text could certainly be legitimately studied from various angles,

my only concern was when critics/commentators of today

start off with nonsensical/commonsensical translations of key/technical words,

and end up caricaturing the original.

While they may be under the impression that they are presenting the author as great,

they may actually be ending up presenting him as grotesque.

While my apprehensions are impelled by

a concern for due responsibility on the part of modern expositors,

they are by no means inspired by

any aversion to newer approaches/novel perspectives.

A great work would, in the memorable words of Bhasa, after all be as:

yathA yathA pramArjmi,

tatha tathojjvalataraM bhavis"yati!

Just to clarify.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfphfrdN9qTSricM42WiQdLYNipAdzadmy4PRKYf_9S7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

What Artha Sastra covers, in modern parlance, comes under statecraft / state administration. Those portions looking like Economics in Artha Shastra may come under State Finance or Government Finance or in modern parlance, Public Finance. Nevertheless Public Finance is a branch of Economics, but not Economics itself or the whole of Economics.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4tNE33iOrD4H8AcAOuScoXH%3DU8MvB_i4dOD1t9nPqvbw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre , Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

A pointed response to Dr. Balbir Singh Sihag's* section 3.2 Requirements for establishing origin of Economics and 3.8 Asrthashastra on Economics as a separate discipline would interest me (atleast). 

*Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.). Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts for twenty two years and now Professor Emeritus of Economics (Source: http://ignca.gov.in/invitations/About_the_speaker.pdf) 

Sincerely,

Megh

PS: This note of mine is not a response to any single person or any single point. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eY%3DSqCKiEqfSFirftbqgy7WPiUTEqQ5HZxE41W-1%3DSUbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Those who have read the recently released economic survey (2019-20) might have noticed that both Dr. Sihag and Dr. Deodhar have been cited in its Chapter 1 (Wealth Creation: The Invisible Hand Supported by the Hand of Trust) p 6.

 

Best,

Megh

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

I could, finally (and a few weeks ago), get access to Surendar Nath Mital's book Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra Revisited, first published in 2000 (Centre for Studies in Civilizations)

It appears to have recently become available again, for sale, on online platforms like Amazon. 

This book joins my list of some rare books—which includes (but is not limited to) Bhagwan Singh-ji's The Vedic Harappans (first published in 1995), K.D. Sethna's Problems of Ancient India (first published in 2000), महामहोपाध्याय Professor Korada Subrahmanyam's Theories of Language: Oriental and Occidental (2008) Michel Danino's The Lost River: On The Trail Of The Sarasvati (2010), Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee's The Nay Science (2014)—that engage critically, empirically and respectfully with some hypotheses that appeared to have / appear to still carry currency in, amongst other places, at least some American universities.  

At a little over 70 pages (pp. 69-141), Mital-ji's engagement with Thomas Trauttman's hypothesis is the most elaborate and pointed critique of Dr Truattman's hypothesis that I have come across. Mital-ji's tables: I found them to be such a delight! 

If anyone in this list is aware of Dr Trauttman's published acknowledgement of, or response to, Mital-ji's work, and would be kind enough to share pointers to that publication, I would really appreciate that; thank you. 

At least in Indian universities, if not in other places, if Dr Trauttmann's hypothesis is being referred to, I hope Mital-ji's work is also discussed. I include below, a part of the index of Mital-ji's aforementioned book:  

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra Revisited 

Surendra Nath Mital (2000); ISBN 81-87586-03-6

Part II: A Study of Trautmann's Statistical Analysis

1. Preliminary Objections  70

(a) Study based only on the use of vā (or) and ca (and)          70

(b) Counting of occurrences of vā (or) and ca not necessary    70

Table I                                                                                        71

(c) 20-word block calculations falsifies the results                      77

2. Examination of Statistical Conclusions of Trautmann            82

(a) Different chapters of various Books not coming from 

the same population 82

(b) Different portions of some chapters also do not come

from the same population 84

(c) The crucial question of context 86

Table II 92

Table III 93

Table IV 96

Table V 98

Table VI 100

3. Other Deficiencies of the Theory  103

(a) Deviation of Trautmann from his own statistics         103

(b) Sentence-length and Compound-length study         105

(c) Control material 107

(d) Cross-references 108

(e) Lacunae of the statistical method exemplified 111

4. Trautmann’s arguments against Kauṭilya’s authorship of

Arthaśāstra 113

(a) Divisions into chapters 114

(b) Chapter 1 117

(c) Book 15 118

(d) Terminal verses 119

Table VII 123

Best,

Megh

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

I am not sure if I am the only one who is mildly piqued (I don't think that might be the case but I certainly hope that is not the case) by the fact that in the Kindle edition of Dr Patick Ollivelle's student Dr Mark McClish's Cambridge University Press published book The History of the Arthaśāstra (2019), one finds Dr Trautmann referred to several times in the book but Mital-ji's work wholly absent. 

From the index of Dr McClish's aforementioned book: 

"Trautmann, Thomas R., 12, 40, 43, 50, 66-67, 72, 105, 125, 141" (page 273 in the Kindle edition). 

Best,

Megh

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHeDPa-Poav1fmaG5ibYKJD%3Dxdw5Eg%2B%3DpciLaKQqtxw_rA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

In Richard Stoneman's 2021 book Megasthenes' Indica: A New Translation of the Fragments with Commentary, while Dr. Trautmann's work vis-a-vis the chronological epoch of the Arthaśāstra is alluded to (some relevant excerpts below), unsurprisingly (for me at least), Dr. Mital's critique of Dr. Trautmann's work (ref: https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/TwawZSd6fpI/m/10tXr0zgBQAJ) is wholly missing. 

"As Trautmann showed, the book must belong to many different periods." (p. 11)

"Trautmann’s argument is based on stylistic analysis, showing that not all of the work can have been written at the same time or by the same author." (p. 9)

Best,

Megh

[Hemant Dave]

Dear Megh,

This could be for the simple reason that there is no cogent refutation of the arguments put forward by Mittal. While I have read Trautmann's, I have not studied Mittal's, so I cannot comment. But yes, when a work is not quoted, debated, or referred to, it automatically goes out of academic discussion, and becomes oblivious. So not quoting a useful, engaging, thought-provoking work is part of the politics of scholarship. 

I have observed, but I could be wrong, Indian scholars are not fond of quoting Indian savants, they prefer western writers instead. To give one instance. D. D. Kosambi in his article on the Beginning of the Iron Age in India refutes an interpretation suggested by Wilhelm Rau. The Vedic and later Vedic texts give descriptions of ploughing with ‘six, eight, twelve or even twenty-four oxen’. In Rau's opinion, we learn from Kosambi, this team was 'ceremonial' and not actual. Kosambi points out that ‘There is no doubt of twelve-ox teams being used, as they still are, for ploughing heavy soils with the heavy plough […]. So Rau’s doubts stem from ignorance of Indian farming technique’ (1963: 315 and note 2; my emphasis). So far so good. What Kosambi does not tell us is revealing. In the History and Culture of Indian People, quoting which is a cardinal sin in dominant Indian historiography, V. M. Apte writes after referring to the team of oxen mentioned in the Vedic texts that 'the plough must have been large and heavy’ (Apte 1951: 464; my emphasis)(obviously to till hard soil like the black cotton soil). Kosambi chooses not to mention Apte and thus puts him into oblivion. Since dominant Indian historiography apes if incapably Kosambi's excellent methods, the subsequent writings will automatically not mention V. M. Apte. Given the linguistic inability, a(n overwhelming) majority of Indian scholars will go to Rau's work. If they do, they will read Apte's name there thus: ‘V. M. Apte möchte aus diesen Angaben auf die Schwere der Pflüge, ich dagegen lieber auf die Habgier der Priester schließen. Die genannten Tiere sollen nach ŚB [Śatapatha Brāmhaṇa] 7, 2, 2, 21 nämlich dem adhvaryu geschenkt werden: also je mehr desto besser!’ (Rau 1957: § 18, p. 25) Rau thus thinks that since the animals were to be gifted to the adhvaryu later, the greedy priest insisted on more animals: the more the better. 

It was from Rau that I knew that such was the original interpretation of Apte and that it was picked up, without acknowledgement, by Kosambi!

To sum up: Indian historians will not refer to Mittal's work and soon it will be forgotten; Trautmann's work will be constantly referred to and his (dubious) conclusion will come to be accepted as final.

Attached are two writings which you may find useful. Steiner's first two pages refers to such politics (he does not call it politics though). The other is a review by Jamison of the viability of statistics in dating Sanskrit texts. 

Best wishes,

Hemant

 

"Weeds are flowers too, once you get to know them..."

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfjrHBO4iDCBNBUOTAXagd0SqV8zJehZW%2B6qN13__%3DECQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Apart from the (obviously foolish) fancy and fashion to cite Western sources,

another ailment bedevils Indian scholarship - a systemic ailment, so to say:

the absence of the counterpart of Jstor - for the massive literature produced by Indian scholars

in their numerous journals for over a century easily, is hardly known, much less available to us.

Not that many Indian scholars even earlier have not toed the Western line,

but even those who have tried then to grasp/absorb the Indian - which is to say, the Dharmic - spirit,

few though they be, are little known, and hardly accessible.

A minimum knowledge of Sanskrit was easily expectable of Indian historians of the early/mid-20th century,

and too few, if any, of our modern historians are at ease handling Sanskrit (or even vernacular) sources.

This must be remedied first;

or else, each aspiring fresh scholar gropes his way

and trudges  in the ill-lit dharmic tract; and gets mauled or swallowed ineluctably

by the aggressive and predatory Western counterpart.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADbZVG84iyYG3LLwcYp4mE5g9d8ZVV_mwPvDReW_UXr54Pmu8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.

Nominated Member, Academic Committee, Kavi Kula Guru Kalidasa University, Ramtek.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.
Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.
Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.
Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

[Ramanujachar P]

बहु सम्यक् सत्यमुक्तं भवद्भिः ।

मया चत्वारिंशद्वर्षेषु चतसृषु भाषासु लिखितानां संग्रहं कर्तुमपारयन्नस्मि, भवतामेव लेखनान्तरं दृष्ट्वा प्रारब्धतादृशयत्नः ।

धार्मिकदृष्टिः पुष्टा भवेच्चेत् पारम्परिकविदुषाम् उपलभ्यमानसर्वलेखनानां सङ्कलनं बहु आवश्यकम् ।

कति कवयः कति कृतयः कति लब्धाः कति नष्टाः लुप्ता वा इति न केवलं पाण्डुलिपीनां विषये, परं कदाचित् कुत्रचित् मुद्रितानामपि

अनन्तरकालिकाभावरूपापायस्य जाग्रत्त्वात् ।

रामानुजः

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7saPuA%2BhZ8z_doArZgd7DGLG%2B6JaiBggruUu7fX-xxDA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. P. Ramanujan
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)

Bengaluru

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Namaste Hemant,

I found your "sum up" to be on-point and totally in-sync with the part of my purpose to initiate this thread. 

Best,

Megh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADbZVG84iyYG3LLwcYp4mE5g9d8ZVV_mwPvDReW_UXr54Pmu8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hemant Dave]

Thanks Megh for your appreciation.

Best wishes,

Hemant

 

"Weeds are flowers too, once you get to know them..."

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfHNKASGa66SOL7hhWxwi0t4bzYDZE0T8xU2cXfMsnHBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 05:36, Sriram Balasubramanian wrote:



Dear all,

Namaskar! I am glad to share the publication of my book 'Kautilyanomics for modern times' (Kautilyanomics https://amzn.eu/d/5vy1Zk4) 

by Bloomsbury publishers this week. The book is available in book stores from this week onwards. 

The book written in my personal capacity has been a work in progress for around 5 years. It tries to do three things— to provide a structure and a context for Kautilya’s economic thoughts in the Arthashastra; second, to examine his work’s relevance today; and third, to do it in a way that a lay reader can follow and grasp easily. It also tries to structure Kautilya’s thoughts through the prism of Dharmic capitalism and contextualizes it to todays times. 

The book has a foreword by Bibek Debroy and blurbs from Sanjeev Sanyal, Meghnad Desai, Shekhar Gupta and Niranjan Rajyadaksha among others. It had a virtual launch under the aegis of Arth with Anand Ranganthan, Professor Satish Deodhar and Dr Radhakrishnan Pillai ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_2i2kOZob8 , https://www.facebook.com/arthlive/videos/391024682984327)

The international virtual launch of the book with Amish Tripathi and Sanjeev Sanyal is later this week on 24th at 5pm IST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-SpIDcMemc)

We hope to have further physical in-person events in the coming months including INDICA's own event on the subject as well. 

Seeking your good wishes and if you are interested do order the book!

Thank you,    

Sriram Balasubramanian

(http://www.srirambala.in)

Author of Kautilyanomics:For Modern Times and JAMBA-The Joint Family