Arthashastra of Kautilya: Relevance in the 21st Century

By Dr. Suresh R

It is true that in the study of Political Science, International Relations, Public Administration, and other related discipline Arthashastra is yet to receive due recognition in India and abroad. In this context, the Indian Institute of Advanced Study (IIAS) Shimla had hosted a two-day National Seminar on 'Reflections on the Relevance of Arthashastra in the 21st Century'
This volume is the collection of selected papers presented at the national seminar. The relevance of Arthashastra in the contemporary world has been well explored in the seventeen articles categorized in three sections. The first part deals with the relevance of Arthashastra in the present century. The second section of the book deals with foreign and security policy, strategic culture as portrayed in Arthashastra. The third section of the book deals with Human Rights, Women's Status, Good Governance, Tax, and Treasury as reflected in Kautilya's Arthashastra.

• Language: English
• Publisher: VIJ Books (India) Pty Ltd
• Release date: May 31, 2021
• ISBN: 9789390439294

Book preview

SECTION - I

Arthashastra and its Significance: An Outline

Reflections on Arthashastra and its Relevance in the 21st Century

M P Muralidharan

There was always this misconception in the Western world that ancient India was ignorant of aspects such as strategy, statecraft or administration even though the Indian epics spoke of vast Kingdoms and of major battles that were fought. All that changed with the discovery of Arthashastra and publication of its English version in the early part of the twentieth century. Evidently, somewhere down the ages we had lost the knowledge about the document and its teachings. In my view, there could be many more such cases. For instance, our mythology also talks of Pushpak Viman. Did we have the technology to fly in those days which we lost? Worth pondering, as some of the descriptions of coastline in Ramayana may not have been possible without an aerial view! But coming back, Arthashastra was seen to be a comprehensive record of actions and guidelines on governing a vast empire, which included aspects of military strategy, diplomacy and economics. It also advised the ruler to promote the welfare of his people as they were the source of strength of a nation. Internal administration of a Kingdom was considered as important as foreign relations. Use of diplomacy and political guile was propagated in preference to outright war. Arthashastra further indicated as to how every resource or element of national power should be utilised by a ruler. Are modern nations not looking at issues through a similar prism? So does one really need to look for the relevance of Arthashastra in the 21st century?

Arthashastra by Kautilya, who has also been called as Chanakya and Vishnugupta, states right at the beginning that it is a compendium of similar treatises written by earlier teachers and covers a wide range of state activity to guide the ruler. In essence, Arthashastra is a comprehensive compilation of actions and advice on governing a vast empire covering administration, military strategy, diplomacy and all aspects of warfare. On the aspect of security of the state against foreign aggression, diplomacy has been advised as preferable to waging war. Rulers are also advised to calculate long term and short term gains before launching a war. It is also pertinent that every activity or advice covered in it is timeless and relevant even today.

Dr R P Kangle in his study, "The Kautilya Arthashastra, has made very pertinent observations on relevance of Kautilya in the modern era, and to quote, we still have the same distrust of one nation by another, the same pursuit of its own interest by every nation tempered only by the considerations of expediency, the same effort to secure alliances with same disregard of them in self-interest". He goes on to say that, it is difficult to see how rivalry and the struggle for supremacy between nations can be avoided or how the teachings of Arthashastra based on these basic facts ever become superfluous, until some sort of one world government or an effective supranational authority is established. We have observed that formation of League of Nations or later the UN has not really transformed the world as envisaged. Therefore, Arthashastra and its basic tenants would in practice, continue to be followed by Nations, even if they do not admit it.

We are all aware that Arthashastra deals with topics as diverse as politics, inter-state relations, military organisation, war fighting, intelligence, economy, trade practices and shipping and even gender relations. It in fact covers the entire spectrum of public administration and other aspects that modern citizens look for in their Nation. It would be interesting to focus a little more on the aspects of security both internal and external. Of course in the modern era diplomacy or foreign policy is very closely interlinked with security issues.

War has been a recurring element in the history of mankind. Most successful nations have been dependent on the strategy of using their armed forces to support their political goals. War of course, is merely an instrument of state policy and often the last resort. Diplomacy or management of International relationships by negotiations is the most preferred option. It is also clear that even after a war or even minor skirmishes, nations look for political settlement of issues.

Military power is thus a major instrument of any modern state to protect its national interests especially its security interests. Unless a nation has a credible military deterrent, very often other nations tend to ignore its views and policies. It may even lead to attempts to usurp territory or economic interests of that nation. In an earlier era, British gunboat diplomacy ensured advancement of her national interests across the globe. In today’s scenario, while missions of the armed forces are even more complex, it is the ability of United States to project military power at virtually every corner of the world that ensures safe guarding of her national interests.

Kautilya had a clear grasp of distinction between means and end, even though he had conceived it more than 2000 years ago. It is a concept that many strategic thinkers of today have not fully appreciated. Kautilya also spoke of intrigue, secret missions and covert operations and diplomatic offensives as instruments of state policy. All these ideas are still relevant and practiced even today. The prohibitive expenses of war were well appreciated by him and therefore advocated that victory can best be achieved without bloodshed. Kautilya also spoke of utilisation of all elements of state power to achieve favourable outcomes.

Arthashastra speaks extensively of military organisation covering each of the constituents of the army, the troops, the organisation into platoons and regiments. Kautilya talks of the infantry, cavalry, the chariots and the elephants. In essence it covers all aspects of land fighting capabilities as then known. It also speaks of the training issues of the army, pay, emoluments, rewards and honors. Kautilya also mentions that families of soldiers killed in the line of duty will be provided with subsistence and wages. He also cautioned against committing troops to confrontation without looking at the aspects of training and possibility of escalation. Battle formations are discussed so are tactics. He further talks of medical support and logistics supplies to be standby to encourage fighting men. Arthashastra also speaks of fortifications and how enemy fortifications could be overcome. While some of the writings and recommendations may appear at variance with modern era norms we practice today, the fact that Kautilya envisaged many of these issues more than 2000 years ago needs to be appreciated.

Kautilya has extensively spoken of the conduct of war focusing on power, place, time, strength and of ascertaining weaknesses of the enemy. The time of invasion is relevant even today. For example, in our own context, the monsoons, severe winter, time of harvesting and heat conditions would all play a role depending on the area of operations. It would also be appreciated that weather conditions play an even more significant role in maritime and air operations. Arthashastra also speaks of the type of equipment, manpower and the importance of finances in any mission. After the presentation of union budget every year, we speak of the need for funds for upkeep and modernisation of the armed forces. Kautilya had emphasised more than two millennia ago, that the army is dependent on a strong finance for its upkeep. He also spoke of strong leadership, industry, infrastructure and population, all of which as having direct bearing on the armed forces. Kautilya also spoke of villages which were exempted from taxation in lieu of military services rendered to the state.

Kautilya did not ignore maritime dimensions of security. He had a post of Chief Controller of Shipping and Ferries, who was responsible for a variety of maritime activities including welfare of sea traders and seamen, ensuring sea worthiness of ships and tackling piracy. A Chief Controller of Ports is also mentioned. Port dues and customs duties are indicated. It also mentions that pirate ships and enemy boats violating territorial limits should be destroyed. Profit margins for trade were fixed at 5% for local goods and 10% for imported ones. Does it not sound similar to modern day protectionism! In essence, the economic dimension of Kautilya’s Arthashastra was both well developed and central to his national security policy.

As mentioned earlier, Arthashastra extensively covers diplomacy and warfare. Kautilya advocates that rulers must carefully examine short term gains through immediate action, vis-à-vis long term gains, which could be attained by awaiting the right moment to act. While the Mandala theory is often considered merely as an arrangement of states in concentric circles, the idea essentially was one of inter-state linkages with its own complex degree of friendliness or animosity or in modern parlance of having allies and adversaries. It would be appreciated that in the ancient world there was fierce competition between States for survival. While in the modern era, especially since World War II, we have not seen major conquest of nations as such, minor annexations and control for power over limited territories are still pursed. Territorial integrity therefore remains an important element of security of a nation, more so in view of the increasing roles being played by non-state actors. While modern day international relations are largely based on the equality of States, it is observed that powerful Nations try and impose their will on others, be it in the form of trade sanctions or by imposing restrictions on movement of people.

Arthashastra talks of achieving success by alternate strategic means. It speaks of creating dissention in the enemy camp. Espionage both military as well as diplomatic is spoken of. It also amplifies the need for local monitoring of intelligence, whether it is for watching the conduct of government officials or keeping the ruler informed of the general public feeling. It also talks of the need to collect information on state of affairs of neighboring kingdoms and the need to ascertain and neutralise any plans they may hatch against others. Diplomatic espionage is also talked of while discussing the duties of the Ambassador. He was expected to strike friendship with enemy’s officers, become familiar with their military strengths as well as ascertain their weak points. He was also expected to cultivate and gain insights into the state of thinking of those in power in enemy territory. In the modern era, our diplomats and defence attaches too are expected to gain insights into the country they serve in.

It is also observed that the basic principles of foreign policy as enunciated in Arthashastra are as applicable today as at the time of writing of the book. The need for economic and military might is emphasized for any nation to pursue its national interests. It also states that any calamity to the people of the country would affect its economic strength and therefore development of the country as a whole. It emphasizes on the importance of leadership, population, industry and infrastructure, all of which are equally relevant even today.

As would be evident, the strength of the Armed Forces of a nation continues to play a significant role in pursuit of its policies. Therefore, in modern era, warfare is not purely a confrontation between armed forces, but is also aimed at achieving supremacy in the economic, diplomatic and political fronts. In today’s world, challenges to global security are possibly no different from what existed at the time of Kautilya. While advances in science and technology have helped change the methodologies employed, the problem of inimical states, terrorism and insurgencies remain in different forms. We also have non-state actors, supported by nations or elements who do not want to appear directly in front.

The principles as laid down in Arthashastra are therefore as relevant today as at the time of its compilation. To summarise what Kautilya spoke of as needs of a successful nation is still significant. Economic prosperity and its distribution among citizens were essential for development of a nation and its security. Good governance, institutions and corruption free officials were necessary for internal stability. On the aspect of internal security, Kautilya spoke of the need to guard against revolts, insurgencies and subversion apart from mere physical security of borders. He also spoke of spies or espionage for external as well as internal monitoring, shades of modern day IB and RAW! Cooperation of the citizens to bring in changes was preferable to confrontation and this could be by material incentives or by appealing to their good sense as citizens. It was imperative for the ruler to place service to his people and their welfare, above his self-interests. Incidentally are we all not looking for something similar in our modern day nations and political and administrative leaders?

Kautilya analysed the internal and external dimensions of national security, strategy at various levels and examined practical aspects of governance. Kautilya’s concepts were effectively used by modern India in its policies. The policy of non-alignment, no first use nuclear policy and non-aggression beyond her borders all have shades of wisdom as advocated by Kautilya.

As we grow economically and possibly emerge as a $5 trillion economy soon, our Armed forces would become even more vital to international peace and stability, as we are seen globally as a nation with no hegemonic ambitions. Our Armed Forces have been some of our most visible ambassadors abroad, be it in peacekeeping duties or in rendering humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Warfare in information age has a greater emphasis on influencing political hierarchy as well as populace at large. Apart from the capability of waging pure warfare, there is also the need for military might to be a threat in being to further national power. Kautilya’s writings teaches us all this.

In the years ahead our military diplomacy and presence may be called upon for support and cooperation worldwide. In my view, as our national interests expand our forces would need to reach out and build partnership with nations big and small across the globe. In this regard, our Navy has been in the forefront by its mission based deployments, bilateral and multilateral exercises across the world and by rendering disaster relief, sometimes even before the effected nation’s forces could react. Of course Navies have the unique advantage of being in international waters and yet being close enough to emerge on the scene when called for.

Kautilya, therefore, compiled in Arthashastra, a policy framework for national governance, which remains very much, a template that can be used even today. The relevance of Arthashastra was very succinctly summed up by Mr. Shiv Shankar Menon, our former National Security Advisor, who said during a seminar organised by IDSA in 2013, "the concepts and ways of thinking that the Arthashastra reveals is useful because in many ways the world which we face today is similar to that Kautilya operated in when he built the Mauryan Empire to greatness." In essence Arthashastra is indeed a timeless compilation on complexities of governance and international affairs. Even though written more than two millennia ago, Arthashastra would remain as a referral guide in statecraft even in the 21st century or in the foreseeable future. At the same time, it needs no reiteration that the writings of Kautilya should be analysed to incorporate suitable modifications to meet the needs of contemporary international relations.

References

LN Rangarajan (Ed) The Arthashastra

RP Kangle The Kautilya Arthashastra Part III P 283.

IDSA, New Delhi Press Release of Oct 08, 2013.

Between Theory and History: Formulating an Alternative Interpretation of Kautilya

¹

Jayashree Vivekanandan

Abstract

Where does the intellectual exercise of tracing the origins of India’s strategic history lead us? What motivates researchers and political elite to identify and uphold key values as intrinsic to a state’s very existence? In seeking answers to these questions, the paper problematises attempts at theorising state building in India that have leveraged history to address contemporary concerns. They have also led to the essentialisation of national identity that seeks to distil, from the vast diversity of historical experiences, certain basic characteristics that presumably remain unchanged across epochs. Together, these have given us a sanitised version of the Indian state. The paper suggests that one of the ways to address this lacuna is through the process of historicising. It seeks to recover historical contingency by locating Kautilya within the ancient arthashastra tradition that upheld the theory of contractual kingship. The paper argues that the significance of Kautilyan philosophy can be grasped by understanding the material and ideational conditions prevalent at that time. More specifically, an appreciation of sovereignty in ancient India would be vital in order to understand state behaviour, diplomatic practices, role of ethics in statecraft (or lack thereof), and practices concerning territoriality. Being attentive to the cultural context of power and political fragmentation, it is argued, would yield a fuller understanding of Kautilya than an essentialist and ahistorical approach would afford.

Keywords: Historical contingency, arthashastra tradition, dharmashastra tradition, akhlaq literature, Indian strategic practice.

Statecraft in India is not about a history but many histories that do not necessarily form a coherent whole. Yet, theories seek patterns in state behaviour, diplomatic practices and role of ethics in statecraft, or lack thereof. In doing so, it is vital to contextualise theoreticians, philosophers and strategists within the times they lived and wrote in. Since Kautilya’s views on statecraft have already been analysed at length, the paper takes this existing body of scholarship as its point of departure. It argues that much of the literature on Kautilya within International Relations (IR) is based on the assumption that the roots of Indian strategic thinking can be, and indeed should be, traced back to the ancient period. The search for India’s ‘pure’ essence in the ancient period arose, as Nietzsche puts it ‘from the belief that things are most precious and essential at the moment of birth.’ (Cited in Drolet 2004: 74) The ‘native’ acquires central importance in this conceptualisation, and by inference, so does the ancient period to which they were as seen as belonging. The ancientness of Indian civilisation, before waves of foreign invasions in the medieval and modern periods ‘overrode’ it, held intellectual appeal for scholars interested in Indian strategic culture. As the overview of the scholarship below demonstrates, the engagement with the ancient period, and hence, with Kautilya, follows this sustained and recurring pattern.

The paper departs from such studies that, by focusing almost exclusively on the man and his times, tend to overlook the larger traditions of strategic thinking, of which Kautilya was but one participant. These traditions did not remain, strictly speaking, ancient but, as we shall observe, witnessed active contributions in the medieval period as well. Nor did these traditions remain constant and true to certain core tenets that could be said to be quintessentially Indian or ancient. They evolved as they responded to the changing political conditions. Kautilya, and indeed, the very question of the relevance of his thought, have to be approached in light of both these factors. This paper, hence, attempts to formulate an alternative interpretation of his philosophy. One that is historically contingent and which could enrich our theoretical understanding of the shifting significance of sovereignty and power in ancient India and after.

Theorising by Historicising

It is evident that the scholarship on the issue of India’s strategic practice can be arranged along a spectrum. On one extremity of the continuum are scholars who argue that internal disunity and cultural attributes prevented Indians from developing a tradition of strategic thinking of any kind. George Tanham’s essay on Indian strategic thought is arguably the most comprehensive contemporary reflection of Orientalist images of India and their strategic significance. (Tanham 1996) The caricature of a defensive India lacking coherence in strategic thought is reinforced by the contrasting Western case, ‘which assume(s) a faith in logic and human progress, the efficacy of individual efforts, a sense of history and continuity, and a future to be shaped and worked for.’ (Tanham 1996: 43) Tanham argues that the defensive approach, an enduring feature of India’s strategic culture, is duly reflected in its foreign policy in the modern era, as it was in the earlier periods. Reinforcing set representations on India, he concludes that ‘the forces of culture and history and the attitude and policies of the independent Indian government have worked against the concept of strategic thinking and planning.’ (Tanham 1996: 75)

Further, there are academics who too are keen on identifying cultural markers but do not necessarily infer strategic incoherence from these. Stephen Rosen, in his attempt to study the influence of domestic social structures on the military effectiveness of states, selected caste as the institution having an enduring influence on Indian military power from the ancient period to the modern era. Rosen contends that caste divisions were duly reflected in Indian armies down ages, and were the cause for their weak military prowess. Projecting caste as an ‘objective’ criterion, Rosen’s is an excessively deterministic view of Indian strategic practice. He asserts, ‘Though other social divisions [religious, regional and linguistic] may be overlaid on the system of caste relations, they do not have the same profound impact on day-to-day life…’ to the extent that religious divisions have become ‘caste-ified.’² (Rosen 1996: 33-34) In the same vein, John Hall argues that the caste system provides the overarching template within which the entire Indian history can be explained. Introducing India as ‘The Land of the Brahmans’ in his book Powers and Liberties: The Causes and Consequences of the Rise of the West, Hall asserts that Brahmanism ‘blocked the emergence of powerful polities’ in India, because of which ‘India did not have a political history’³ (Cited in Blaut 2000: 133, emphasis original).

At the other end of the continuum would be those who contend that Indian strategists showed a decided preference for the realist approach. Studies seeking to refute claims of a defensive India also succumb to the tendency of delineating identifiable attributes that have survived the ravages of history, in this case of an essentially realist approach. A culturally militaristic Indian outlook is located in certain key ancient texts such as the Arthashastra, Manusmriti and the Vedas. Bharat Karnad for instance, contests the caricature of Indians as culturally defensive people who shirk the use of force and argues that the texts offer the ruler a gradient of options culminating in war. For Karnad, Indian strategic thinking is characterised by pragmatism that can be traced to the ancient period. History, he asserts, has reiterated the innate Indian proclivity to be calculative and to strategise. However, in tracing its progress down millennia, Karnad reduces the medieval era to being ‘the Muslim interregnum’ that bridged the ancient and the colonial periods. The contribution of medieval rulers was restricted to changes at the tactical and strategic level, whereas the already established grand strategic framework remained intact. (Karnad 2002: 23-24) Andrew Latham contends that the realpolitik thinking introduced by the British further underscored the realist streak in the ‘Kautilyan tradition’. This led the Indians to conceptualise security in ‘essentially unilateral terms’, as opposed to the Western notion of ‘mutual’ security during the Cold War. In India’s case, both traditions emphasised the supremacy of the dominant power to which smaller states were expected to submit. The colonial preoccupation with security as the defence of ‘natural’ frontiers of the subcontinent is reflected in the Indian concern with all security issues that fall within South Asia. (Latham 1999: 137, 140) Despite assertions that the Indian security culture cannot be ‘traced back to some ‘authentic’ pre-colonial tradition’, Latham sets out to explore the ‘[e]ffects of Hindu Norms on Foreign Policy Style’.⁴ (Latham 1999: 146) Not surprisingly, the familiar Tanhamian interpretation of Indian culture is adopted, emphasising as it does on its hierarchical understanding of international power relations stemming from the ubiquitous caste system. Furthermore, the Hindu concepts of Karma and fate allow Indians to accept ‘inconsistencies and contradictions’ that trouble the Westerners. (Latham 1999: 147)

However, if there is one point that this panoramic view of positions reveals, it is their shared assumption that history and culture can be analysed as a seamless whole, from which validations of contemporary positions can be sought. The tendency to collapse the past into the present remains deeply problematic. This perhaps explains the incongruity as to why IR scholarship on India has progressed little despite the burgeoning literature on culture studies.

The Realist and Moralist Traditions

An alternative reading of Kautilya that begins by historicising sovereignty and diplomacy in ancient India reveals not one but many histories of strategic practice. Two strategic traditions are discernible in Indian strategic thought, the realist and the moralist. Both traditions were based on two conflicting notions of the state (a parallel engagement with heroism and prudence). It is notable that neither tradition was restricted to the ancient period. These traditions are best seen as successful and optimal responses to the challenges to state power prevalent at a particular time. In Indian strategic thought, the realist tradition that focused on the calculated acquisition and exercise of power is juxtaposed with the moralist tradition, which stressed on the ethical dimensions of power such as peace and justice. (Brekke 2006: 138) Notwithstanding their contrasting articulations, both traditions converge at certain points in terms of the implications these held for social order and stability. Both seek to socially contextualise kingship in ways that make the institution indispensable to the preservation of social order. They also offer conceptualisations of stability not bound by territoriality but predicated on measures that obviate the use of force.

The two traditions were in a way responding to the prevailing political climate in ancient India. Political fragmentation was the norm during the ancient and medieval periods, but this however did not imply political chaos as is commonly assumed. Indeed, although ancient India was fragmented into multiple kingdoms, the political landscape formed a chequered board on which Kautilya based his well-developed network of alternating relations of alliance and enmity. Sovereignty in India was a nebulous concept that did not entail the clear demarcation of the king’s political realm. Since theoretically, the authority of the king was universal (given that he was seen as the microcosm of the entire cosmos), making a distinction between the internal and the external domains was self-limiting. The logic of the all-encompassing authority of the king extended to the use of force as well. A dualistic understanding of the use of force (of seeing internal violence as sedition and external force as war) was likewise absent in Indian theorisations. Thus, the strategies employed in war against external enemies were similar to those against internal opponents. (Brekke 2006: 120-121)

The two traditions trace their lineage to two conflicting notions of the state that are expounded in classical texts. The arthashastra tradition that refers to a rich body of literature comprising texts such as Kautilya’s Arthashastra, Kamandaki’s Nitisara and the Barhaspatya Sutra stress on the centrality of the outcome, thereby making the use of ethical and unethical means justifiable. The Ramayana’s 6000 references to military action potentially qualify it as yet another treatise of the arthashastra tradition. The taxonomy of military strategies of conciliation, bribery, sowing dissension and coercion in the Ramayana coincide with the broader classification arrived at by Kautilya. (Brekke 2006: 118) These texts conceive of the state as a managerial, unitary and bureaucratised entity capable of attaining power (artha). Kautilya’s ‘circle of kings’ was one such response, given the fractured political environment he wrote in. The decline in the use of military strategies, prudence in war, and the dominance of the notion of chivalry extolling death in war, are regarded by some researchers as the causes behind the inability of Hindus to effectively oppose the invading Muslim armies. Yet, the discourse on prudence was not altogether overshadowed by the moralist tradition, which the dharmashatra literature in the Middle Ages was part of. Somadeva Suri, a Jain teacher upheld prudence over heroism in his work, Yashastilaka. The notion of treacherous warfare (kutayuddha), which is denounced in the dharmashastra literature as unethical is advocated by Somadeva, and is indeed one of the underlying principles of the arthashastra theory. (Brekke 2006: 135) The ancient arthashastra tradition upheld the theory of contractual kingship and stressed on the centrality of outcome, thereby espousing an instrumentalist approach to justice.

Extant epics and Vedic texts are significant to our discussion of Kautilya here especially given their rich repertoire of incisive references to military and political affairs, strategising and war-making. A notable attribute of India’s philosophical literature (taken to be the mainstay of its culture by strategic culturalists) is the marked paucity of treatises devoted to military affairs. If a researcher were to embark upon a search for historical military texts, she would come upon few other than the Arthashastra. (Lal 2003: 37) That the bulk of such material is couched in ostensibly religious and sacred literature perhaps indicates a self-conscious desire to define security in holistic terms.

A response strategy at wide variance with Kautilya’s calculative king focused on the just ruler whose primary role was to maintain the rule of dharma on which his society was based. In this alternative conception, the basis of kingship is primarily ethical and religious (dharma) supported by a network of personal relationships. (Stein 1975: 81-82; Singh 1995) The moralist tradition sought to differentiate between the enemy and the conflict situation and placed a high premium on moral concerns which eventually were to inform the conduct of war.

While the tradition’s engagement with the discourse on justice and ethical conduct is traceable to the ancient period, what is worth noting is its sustained preoccupation with these concerns in the medieval period as well. The akhlaq literature needs to be seen as an extension of this sensibility as its normative underpinnings undoubtedly draw from the stock of moralist writings that preceded it. The akhlaq tradition of the medieval period upheld the notion of procedural justice. The entire state apparatus was to be devoted to the pursuit of a liberal conception of justice, understood as a dynamic state of harmonious balance in society among contending groups. The texts as part of the akhlaq literature relied on religious arguments to gain credibility, while attempting at the same time to redefine the norms governing kingship and political norms. They presented an essentially non-Islamic political discourse in Islamic terms, drawing on the established and widely recognised grammar of religion (din) and the Sharia.

The texts as part of the akhlaq literature relied on religious arguments to gain credibility, while attempting at the same time to redefine the norms governing kingship and political norms. They presented an essentially non- Islamic political discourse in Islamic terms, drawing on the established and widely