Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/653

 E(ONOMI$ IN ANr(tEN2 ' INDIA osl sols tnd maintain them, unrighboous, uneoonomiosl and (pp. 19-t0. Eng. Trsn.) but also put down displeasing acts", The following outright condemnation of the science o! Ksulya by Bans, the author of emphatically brings out the two-fold sapeels of Arhsshssrs :-- "Is there anything that is for whom the precepts, rich teachers are the Ksdsmbsri pollFlO-OCOllOml practice of witchcraft; to whom ministers, inclecl to deceive others, are councillors; desire /s ahoays for tl goddess of ben cat away by thousands of devoted to the and to whom wealtk that who application brothers, of destructive sffeotionse wih always whose has soienees; nsu. rsl, as the learned treatise ocrdial love, are fit victims to be murdered?". Then 8ukraehsrys father of all know who is Indian ss the universally recognized statesmen and whose $hukra Nit$ars is veritable mine of very valuable and interesting in- formation, defines Arhsshsstrs ss "the Science which deals with the -functions of (vernmen in eonso- nanco with the injunctions of the Vedas and law- books and teaches useful methods of the production and accumulation of wealth" (V. 8, 5, 6). The irnmorll Ks. It.class, the Shakespeare o! India, hss briefly but folcitously remarked that writers of Arth&shsstrs deal with the three-fold ideal of lifo-duty, wealth and happi- ness. While in eontrsdiotion to the above, the lexioo- grapher Amsrs-simhs of the most renowned Amsrs- koshs has identified Arthsshsstrs with Dsnds.niti, the seienoe of .Public Lw.. With the exoeption of Amara-simha, all the other four writers, 8ukrs, 0hanakya, Bans and Kslidass, are righteous for those seionoo of Ksutilys, merciless in its in cruelty is sn authority; whose priests habitually hard-hearted with