Hinduism is 100% anti-Socialist!
Dear All: This is a “lazy post” – i.e. a collection of excerpts, courtesy my friend and FTI colleague Sanjeev Sabhlok. For the past several days, Sanjeev has been running a series of posts and excerpts on his blog on the link between Hinduism and Capitalism, trying to demonstrate that Hindusim is not only compatible with capitalism but actively encourages it and Hindu ideals do not confirm with socialist ideas. From his post titled, 2 excerpts to get convinced that Hinduism is 100% anti-Socialist!, read on (emphasis, by Sanjeev):
It is deplorable that it is not widely known in India that Hinduism is totally inconsistent with the socialist ideology. Some wishy-washy attempts to link Hinduism with socialism have been attempted (such as Vedic socialism), but these are ALL wrong. There is simply no way that Hinduism operates a socialist regime.
…Therefore an analysis of Hindu capitalism would begin with the social contract and role of the state; then the role of individual, and thereafter consider other institutions. I can already see a book emerging clearly in my mind! After I finish The Discovery of Freedom.
Note that the original design of the NON-HEREDITARY caste system was not as pernicious as it turned out to be. Its existence highlights a key design failure of the Hindu law givers (they did not realise the huge moral hazard that lies within such systems). Had the original law makers realised what was going to happen 1000 years later, they would have backed off from the idea of varna, and talked about occupational expertise and division of labour, instead (both of which underpin the caste system, along with issues of “race”, etc.).
Here are the two snippets:
Hinduism therefore is not suitable for a political ideology that would strive to establish a socialist society based upon forcible restriction of the freedom of individuals and sharing of wealth. India tried unsuccessfully to inculcate the ideals of socialism among Hindus. Those who tried to rub it on the Indian masses over looked the fact thatsocialism and communism contradicted with the fundamentals of karma and maya and therefore would never succeed in the country so long as the roots of Hinduism were intact in the soil. The idea of free enterprise goes well with Hinduism because it is very much in harmony with the theory of karma. Free enterprise is natural to Hinduism. So also the theory of survival of the fittest.
b) Mario Gómez-Zimmerman has this to say:
The Capitalist Structures of Hinduism
We must keep in mind two characteristics of Indian culture. First, the typical Western split between the religious and the socio-economic realms is very limited in Hinduism, as it is indeed for most Oriental mentalities; practical social morality is supposed to agree with religious and philosophical precepts. Thus, codes of law which presumably derive from the latter can be regarded as part of Hinduism. Second, as there is no central religious authority to establish orthodoxy, the teachings of recognized spiritual masters are usually incorporated into Hinduism. In addition, let us state that we will refer here mainly to traditional doctrines and practices.
In order to identify if Hinduism fits into a capitalist or socialist framework, we will look at three basic issues:
- the caste, or Varna, system,
- theologico-philosophical issues regarding property (outside the sacred texts), and
- some socio-historical facts or events.
An understanding of the caste system is crucial to understanding Indian social and economic structures and practices.
….Such a system does not merely reflect a division of labor; it is rooted in the notion that man attains fulfillment only by performing his duties, which consist in developing his natural potentialities. In truth, the system only entailed a ranking or hierarchy of labors resulting from different capacities, not a distinction in the context of human dignity or worth, which was the outcome of vested interests and human shortcomings. Buddhism actually did not oppose the Varna system itself, only the belittlement of those considered inferior, averring that anyone, including Sudras, could reach enlightenment. [Sanjeev: the original caste system might not have discriminated, being merit based, but moral hazard overcame its intent. It was bad design.]
The Varna system was considered–and still is, although in a way more akin to its original design–a pre-requisite for every good society, and the axis of social life. For example, in the laws of Manu, the most important Dharma-Sastra, the duties and functions of the castes are listed and their corresponding right and wrong practices pointed out. In one of the most important passages, it is said that the Vaisya must exert himself to the utmost in order to increase his property in a righteous manner, which includes providing others with food. Manu’s code endorses market practices, although it provides regulations above all for the market of labor.
As it is true for all the great religions, Hinduism warns human beings about the dangers of accumulating wealth, and at times demands them to renounce it. But in all cases, wealth is attacked because it is likely to subject man to dependency, fostering egoism, greed, and avarice, and not for being an evil in itself. In fact, wealth is considered a good to be pursued within the spheres of worldly affairs, trying at the same time to remain detached from it, which is the way to spiritual evolution.
(In India, throughout the centuries) the play of particular economic forces was not over regulated and, more significantly, the individual was considered to have rights before the state.
…The above points to several conclusions that reveal capitalist structures in Hinduism:
The socialist concepts of equality and a classless society are completely rejected by the Varna system. All too rigid as it was (at least theoretically), it would appear at first sight as a statist construct–so common under any socialist scheme. However, such a system constitutes an ontological need of a society rooted in the cosmogonical myth mentioned in note 1. The way it was implemented, the system limited many freedoms, but it also allowed each caste not to be fused within a general standard and to be free to live its own way. Of course, endogamy and other features of a caste system do not exist in capitalism. Nevertheless, with the allowance of greater social mobility and the recognition of equal human dignity for all, capitalism has indeed modernized the Varna system.
Central planning and regulations were implemented according to higher parameters set by Hinduism’s worldview, which were accepted by the collective conscience as traditional goods, with the state being, at least ideally, an instrument. [Sanjeev: this is based on the social contract idea, very clearly known in Hinduism! but the fact that this is a basic Hindu concept is apparently not known to the writer of this article].
…the state was never a mechanism to subordinate the individual good to that of the society, which in short defines a socialist worldview.
Hinduism never denies the right to property; calls to renunciation fall outside the legal sphere. The attainment of wealth, although embodied with a social function, is considered a praiseworthy personal achievement. In fact, there is also a need in capitalism that economic activities project to the common good.
…Although subjected to regulations, man always enjoyed in India enough freedom over what he had created.
…What characterizes socialism above all is that it takes the person as a means, while the recognition of the individual as an end, and thus as subject of inalienable rights, is the most distinctive juridico-economic structure of both capitalism and Hinduism.
Also read, “Hindu capitalism – a vibrant, innovative, and TRULY FORMIDABLE form of capitalism from which this brief excerpt:
From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, much of the European trade depended on financing by Indian capitalunder the control of large-scale merchants(Appadurai 1974; Arasaratnam 1980; Basu 1982; Brennig 1977; Chaudhuri 1978; Furber 1951; Lewandowski 1976; Subrahmanyam 1990). Not surprisingly, the relationship was always strained on both sides.[20]From the European point of view, Indian brokers held entirely too much power and, moreover, often employed it in competition with the Europeans themselves.By 1680, European merchants were already attempting to alter the indigenous system by insisting on dealing with groups of merchants operating like their own joint stock companies rather than with individuals with privileged claims on their European patrons and monopolistic power over native producers (Brennig 1977: 338–340; see also Arasaratnam 1979; Subrahmanyam 1990). But these efforts to circumvent the Indian mercantile elite were by and large unsuccessful in that even the joint stock companies continued to be dominated by a small number of highly powerful “chief merchants” (Arasaratnam 1980).
Thanks, Shantanu
Given the massive amount of information now available, I’ve decided to compile it into a book form. Have started the compilation – already about 100 pages, but will grow as I complete the initial work.
Thereafter I’d appreciate if you and your readers can send further info that could be included.
The problem is that Indians gave in too easily to Nehru’s grandiose statist ideas in the 1950s. Rajaji consistently tried to get him off the socialist bandwagon but he didn’t care. I’m certain Patel would have opposed such a conception, as well.
On reason why Nehru won and Rajaji/Patel lost was that the Marxist literature had called Indian society feudal (to fit it into the European mould); Weber considered Hinduism incompatible with capitalism, and even in the 1990s, there is utter tripe being taught about Indian economic history in the most famous textbooks on economic history.
When all our intellectuals took Marx’s and Weber’s words at face value, then it was difficult for Rajaji to overpower these views. And the Hindus who wrote about history were so poorly read (e.g. Golwalkar) that they merely proved to people like Nehru (and Gandhi) how shoddy Hindu political and economic thinking was.
Our tragedy is that very few have cared to ACTUALLY study India’s social, political and economic system. Fortunately, some people have been doing this in a piecemeal manner over the past few decades.
It is time we bring this together and show India that its heart is made of gold, and we need to rediscover that vitality and system of wealth creation.
Current version can be downloaded from http://hc.sabhlokcity.com/
s
Any discussion of Socialism, Capitalism and Hinduism becomes irrelevant unless we resolve the role of property, property rights and consequently, the means of production that any such ownership brings about. In that matter, Marx was bang on target to identify means of production as the key to understanding history. As already commented elsewhere, Marx was a good doctor, as far as diagnosis goes, but his medicine was dangerous.
• The crux of Capitalism is privatized property rights. Remove this brick and the whole edifice of Capitalism comes tumbling down. That said, establishing property rights across the world, or preparing the World for capitalist exploitation, has been catastrophic to the involved populations, from Britain, Japan, and Europe to India. Millions dispossessed and moved from dependence on land, which is far secure, to dependence on production by working under a Capitalist for a full day’s wage. After all, a land-owning peasant can always grow his food.
• Unless there is a sovereign who recognizes property rights and uses force (Sovereignty within a given territory meant that legitimate use of force was to be done by a single authority who could be a king) to protect such rights on behalf of its owners, Capitalism cannot thrive.
• Hinduism recognized no property rights as it was philosophically an established ideal that pursuit of wealth, per se, is not something to be aspired for, given that one leaves this world in the very form he arrived (naked). This does not mean we were a culture steeped in poverty. Far from it. We were the world’s leading manufacturing, trading and military power.
• The Sanskrit word for wealth , is “Dravya†(that which flows).Hence wealth in itself is ephemeral and fleeting. The nature of wealth, was pointed out beautifully by Banabhatta in the Shukanasa Upadesha of the Kadambari.
• We all know that property rights came to India with Islam and Christianity. This offered stability of revenues to the sovereign, in the case of the Islamic thugs and a way to introduce Capitalism in India to the English. Of course, the effects were the same as dispossession in England. The social calamity was huge. We have had villages where the entire villages were treated as community property (samudayam villages). Lands were identified based on fertility and there was a sort of rotation of cultivation. Refer the works of Dharampal.
• The king in India was not sovereign in the sense of use of legitimate power, since there were no property rights. He went by “Rajdharmaâ€- his royal duties relative to other duties by other constituents in society. The rights of the king were in relation to the rights of others. E.g the common citizen had a right to peaceful protest.Which was called Satyagraha.
• The doctrine of Rex non protest peccare (The king can do no wrong) is also a fundamental construct of sovereignty.
Very good info. I would label the economic principle of hinduism as ‘Ethical Capitalism’ capitalism with less greed.
Best Regards,
Ramamurthy
To Ramamurthy above:
Sir, the entire concept of greed driving human economic activity is a Western concept. Not to say that only the Western man is greedy. It is behaviour common to all people. I may be greedy enough to wolf down a burger, but my culture was not greedy enough to covet other’s wealth and women. But to raise it to the level of a credo to model entire nations, continents and economies on it, requires not a small amount of evil genius. I will disagree with your principle of “Ethical Capitalismâ€. As Marx pointed out, Capitalism is inherently unethical as the surplus generated by the labourer is claimed by the Capitalist. Capitalism is an economic artifact. Hinduism is an ethical, spiritual, moral, social, behavioural social code where the goal of man is to uphold Dharma, with all its wide and diverse interpretations and ramifications.
I’ll take the ideas I presented above a bit ahead:
• Rajdharma did not mean that the King could do no wrong. There is an instance in Indian history when people called upon a person to be king due to existing misrule by another king. Chanakya conspired to overthrow the Nandas for precisely this.
• A recent article in The Economist mentioned that the chief workhorse of Capitalism has been the Joint –stock company. This, if my memory serves me right, was written by one of the most respected Management gurus, Mr. P.F.Drucker. Again, bang on analysis.
• Sovereigns have given corporations, which is a legal artifact to reduce economic risk, the status of a person. This gives the owners a shield against downside risk, while providing for an almost infinite opportunity for growth. Witness the historical evolution of corporations bigger than entire nation-states. An Exxon-Mobil is an economy the size of many African nations.
• Having said that, Emily Penrose in the Theory and Growth of the Firm tries to answer the question as to why the firm exists: to increase profits. And why does the firm need to increase profits? To grow. And why does it need to grow? To increase profits.
• The above very largely sum up the economic system of Capitalism. Joint stock companies exist to increase profit and growth.
• In an economy-wide perspective then, firms provide owners of capital an opportunity to increase profits. Firms, thus grow to increase profits and increase profits so that they can grow. Thus the entire economy is in a feedback loop of growth increasing profits and increasing profits bringing in more growth. This is full-blown Capitalist Economy in play for you. Managers of any firm work towards the above two objectives.
Having pointed out the above, we still need to understand what were the Hindu economic institutions before the arrival of the British. While Capitalism has been analysed globally, Hindu economic institutions have been neglected. One pointer is the organisation called “Guilds†or “Shrenis†This was a loose arrangement of artisans, craftsmen. Also industrialists of the sort of Wadias, Tatas and Birlas were non-existant in Hindu India as technology was diffuse and decentralized. Read the works of Dharampal on this.
That said, we had rich and large trading families in India, The Chettiar community, Gujarathi community, etc. These communities had global trading linkages. So Globalization is not new for India. We have been a trading power for millennia. All this is cut off from our common discourse and we had P. Chidambaram once go to England and say that I am here to invite you to remove 5000 years of Indian poverty, or words to that extent.
I can go on and on, but will conclude with this aside: The Roman Catholic Church could be said to be the world’s oldest Corporation i.e., an entity different from its agents, who wield power in its name. Do I need to conclude by saying that Capitalism is an economic artifact rooted in Christianity? Which was why Max Weber said dismal things about Hindus and Buddhists? Also, Capitalism evolved later than and independent of Hinduism. So it is a matter of whether the principles of Capitalism are in agreement with Hinduism and not the other way round.
Pl also read: India Traders of the Middle Ages: Documents from the Cairo Geniza “India Bookâ€, by M.A. Friedman; S.D.F. Goitein.
Perhaps Hindu economics and politics was very sound in theory and good for everyone and so on, perhaps it was not so great, who can judge?. In the end, what counts is whether the society anticipated external attacks and created adequate defences. The Portugese, French, and the British came from thousands of miles away and conquered India. It could not have happened without there being some inherent faults in the social and economic structure.
In 2010 I heard a talk in Pune given by Dr Bokare, a political scientist, on the Arthashastra. In his talk Dr Bokare referred to the work of his more famous brother Dr M. G. Bokare, author of Hindu Economics (published in 1993) and his understanding of the Hindu/Vedic/dharmic science and art of economics. Western capitalism and economics is based on artificially creating scarcity (by hoarding goods)and thereby generating wealth and profits, which is against dharma. Hindu economics works on an opposite principle: creating abundance (aishvarya) of goods and services which leads to abhyudaya (general welfare of the community. The motto of Hindu economics, accordingly, is the maxim of adhikasya adhikam phalam (much begets more).
“It could not have happened without there being some inherent faults in the social and economic structure.”
Not necessarily. A ship does not have any inherent faults and is quite capable of navigating the seas, but it does require a capable captain and an expert crew to avoid any accidents.
Yr earlier post on Chanakya says it all:Dharmasya moolam artha.
R.C Majumdar has written books on the business practices of Hindus, the construction of srenis or guilds etc. which point out that the economic base was robust and all-inclusive. It would be wrong to connect modern capitalism with its’ pitfalls with a system re-conceived in such depth by ppl like Chanakya.
I notice that “hereditary”systems is still a bone of contention.
Swami Vivekanand’s quote saying “the older I grow, the more I appreciate the Hindu systems..” is a point to ponder here.
Ramana Maharshi sayings, Ganapati Shastri’s appeals at that time, are all indicators in the same direction.
In response to ‘The Capitalist Hindu’.
1.The crux of Capitalism is privatized property rights
I think we do also have this concept of property rights. In our puranas there are many instances where
a person is said to own some amount of land, x number of cows.. etc. Land and cows were termed to be
property if I am not wrong and the said person owned them.
But Hinduism has a concept similar to ‘patent rights’.
The example I can provide is the rishi for a mantra. We have got n number of mantras and every mantra
has got a rishi who is termed as it’s drastha. And any bhakta chanting a mantra has to remeber him each
time and some part of the punya will go to the rishi.
2.Unless there is a sovereign who recognizes property rights and uses force to protect such rights on
behalf of its owners, Capitalism cannot thrive.
There are many instances where king/zamindar/karanam(head of village) used to give judgement regarding
property issues.
3.Hinduism recognized no property rights as it was philosophically an established ideal that pursuit of
wealth, per se, is not something to be aspired for, given that one leaves this world in the very form he
arrived (naked).
I would disagree your point on obtaining wealth. Please read ‘MAHABHARATH’. There are n number of
instances that one should earn as much money as possible.
And I would agree that craving for money(greed) is bad.
4.The king in India was not sovereign in the sense of use of legitimate power, since there were no
property rights.
There are many instances where the kings have given x number of acres of land, y number of
cows to brahmins as gifts. Such instances I think show the ownership of property.
5. Regarding your respons to my statement:
As per hinduism the purusharthas(goals) for a human being are ‘dharma, artha, kama and moksha’.
We have mainly three fundamental gods ie. brahma, vishnu and shiva with duty of creation,
maintenance, and destruction correspondingly.
If earning money is bad/greed then why hindusim has goddess Lakshmi(money) as the wife of Vishnu.
So in order for the maintenance/continuation of the state/family one needs money and this thing is
universal.
We have 8 forms of wealth depicted as 8 forms of goddess lakshmi.
Regarding Marx statement, I am a software engineer(labourer) and I work for a corporation. I am given
montly salary for my work and if corp has good profits it may/maynot give incentive/bonus. Similar
things are depicted in all puranas/mahabharatha. Earning profits is good but not giving salaries to
labourers is greed/bad and it has no place in hinduism
Only salary is mentioned for labourer in hinduism, if you find an instance where the owner gives the
share of profit in hindu epics please show me.
‘Capitalism is unethical’ I am not sure if my understanding of capitalism differs to your understanding.
Economic activity is driven by ‘Dharma’ and not greed.
If india wasn’t a manufacturing/trading center of the world how can in the kingdom of Krishadevaraya,
could be diamonds sold on the streets.
I take my hats off for your definition of hinduims ‘Hinduism is an ethical, spiritual, moral, social,
behavioural social code where the goal of man is to uphold Dharma, with all its wide and diverse
interpretations and ramifications’.
You put it perfectly, but earning money is not neither greed nor bad.It is the duty of a citizen to
earn as much as possible and not crave for it.
I would recommend reading MAHABHARAT if one has doubts regarding all concepts of hinduism.
If capitalism is earning money I would say ‘Yes, the principles of Capitalism are in agreement
with Hinduism’.
@Ramamurthy (#11): Pl keep your comments short and to the point. Thanks
It does not matter whether Hinduism in the past had supported capitalism or not. When it comes to material world very little is embraced or out right rejected in Hinduism. That is why India has remained free to experiment with a kind of socialism under Nehru and capitalism now. I think Hinduism as I understand is more likely to
accept capitalism than socialism. That is simply because socialism is far more structured and less individualistic than capitalism and that is not in line with Hindu thinking. And that is precisely why Hindus were not able to defend themselves. No unity, each on his own. No structure, poor organization and poor discipline. This is evident even now to a certain extent.
Also read: http://networkedblogs.com/By9mC The Hindu agriculturist was far superior to his British counterpart
and also hear Claude Alvares on Academic Imperialism: http://youtu.be/cySj7da5fB0
Courtesy Harsh Vora (Via Sanjeev), excerpts from a recent piece by Bibek Debroy on ManuSmriti and the Duties of the King:
On paying higher salaries:
7.114-118 lays down a structure of governance, along the following lines.  There will be officers over 1 village, over 10 villages, over 20 villages, over 100 villages, over 1000 villages, and so on, vertically upwards.  A kula means a family/household.  It also means that much of land that can sustain a family/household.  An officer/ruler over 10 villages will be given 1 kula of land, an officer/ruler over 20 villages will be given 5 kulas of land, an officer/ruler over 100 villages will be given the revenue from one village and the officer/ruler of 1000 villages will be given the revenue of an entire town (7.119).  There will be fixed daily wage rates for those employed in royal service in the royal household (7.125). The lowest will be given 1 pana (a coin), the highest will be given 6 panas.  Once every six months, they will be given new clothes and every month, they will be given 1 drona (a measure) of grain (7.126). Â
On taxing less:
7.129 tells us that the king’s taxation must not be excessive.  He must be like a leech, a calf or a bee, that is, he must not take excessively.  If it is cattle or gold, the king can tax 1/50th.  If it is crops, the king can tax 1/6th, 1/8th, or 1/12th (7.130).  If it is produce from trees, he should take 1/6th (7.131).  For those who live on manual labour, the king can demand one day’s free labour every month (7.138). In 7.187, you will find recommendations on a vyuha (battle-formation).  In 7.217-218, you will find recommendations on how the king should avoid being poisoned.  I need not repeat all this.  The point is that people tend to associate such prescriptions with Kautilya’s “Arthashastraâ€, or some other tracts on royal policy, not necessarily with Manu Smriti.  But in Chapter 7 of Manu Smriti, you will find quite a bit of this.
Hinduism / varna is not a form of capitalism. It is a form of socialism. The basics of varna , hence jAthis under each varna, rests on the idea one jAthi – one occupation / vocation. Take Brahmin jAthi – a jAthi whose main pursuit is Vedic learning & pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge & most importantly to LIVE OFF ON DONATIONS. They CANNOT sell their knowledge ie. take money to teach others this knowledge. This is the anti-thesis of capitalism in which everything is for sale. Higher the knowledge in your possession, more the ability to sell that knowledge ( earn more). Eg. doctors.
When it comes to land, again it was British who changed land ownership in a major way. Till that period, no one from outside can buy land. Farmers aren’t allowed to sell their land. Entire land is a King’s domain, to be donated at his discretion except for farmers’ who owned the land they tilled. Today, we have outsiders buying property in India while natives struggle to own what is rightfully theirs. All in the name of capitalism. One should read , even a preview , of Dowry Murder – Imperial Origins of a cultural crime by Ms. Veena Talwar Oldenburg to understand this. http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/How-the-British-created-the-dowry-system-in-Punjab-1.aspx
/* . The attainment of wealth, although embodied with a social function, is considered a praiseworthy personal achievement. */ Again, attainment of wealth is not for everyone. Only vaisyas were allowed to accumulate wealth. They were mandated to support temples, other jAthis particularly Brahmins to spread knowledge.
Varna – jAthi system gave complete ownership to the producers. It gave what people ,what we now crave in a capitalist economy, job security for perpetuity. Varna via jAthis, emphasize piety to ancestors, family, kinship irrespective of whether they were wealthy or not , traditions. Which a capitalist economy, via individualization, never can do. It turns man against woman, competing for the same jobs.
By making that connection 1 jAthi – 1 vocation , it prevented others from usurping their knowledge passed down families. A kind of patent protection.
http://books.google.com/books?id=eZTDOaEmNMsC&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=animalizing+cotton&source=bl&ots=Q1fnspEhEg&sig=P6DDPakI1xV1jxlrWamfJKtfOto&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AR-nUuCEIIz6rAHlh4G4Aw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=animalizing%20cotton&f=false
shows how dyers as a jAthi prevented outsiders from taking over their trade secrets. But once they converted out / allowed an outsider to influence them, they lost their secrets to the West. Which today boasts of “industrial revolution”.
Hindus need not, should not be apologetic about vocations passed via heredity, Our sages envisioned the confusion that would arise, if each were left to their own selves as separate individuals. Anyone familiar with IQ discourse in the West, will know most of IQ is determined by genes. In fact, as more West researches genes, more it finds lot of our behavior / thoughts governed by it..
Thousands of years of endogamous practices has ensured, each of our Hindu jAthis may be preselected for a particular skill set. Instead of allowing that to flourish, what Hindus want is dismantle that setup in a War Against JAthi & allow MNCs to set up shop in India saying “Hinduism isn’t against capitalism, free trade”. & make people work for those MNCs. Once resources run dry they will close shop & move elsewhere leaving people without their traditional skills & land.
So people who want to usurp Hinduism / Vedas need to think twice , thrice before leaving Hinduism / Hindus / Hindu jAthis vulnerable to outside forces in the name of ‘free markets, capitalism’.
Excerpt from The Desirability of Artha by Bibek Debroy:
…But three messages come out very strongly.
First, creating artha is desirable, as long as that wealth-creation is done through legitimate means and wealth created is used for desirable purposes. Without artha, dharma and kama can’t be pursued. Artha is the base.
…if there is an impression that Hinduism is against wealth-creation, that’s because of selective and biased reading from the texts.
…
Note also another point. If the king is equated with the State, there were limited expectations from the State, beyond security, law and order and jurisprudence. For instance, public works were driven by individuals, not necessarily by the king. Who imparted skills-training? Not the State, but the counterpart of what may be called guilds.
On jurisprudence, it is interesting that the ‘Mahabharata’ gives a listing of 17 types of civil suits, in order of priority, which the king should pay attention to. Right at the top was breach of contract. On the criminal side, there is an argument that rich people should not be imprisoned. That’s a drain on the public exchequer. Instead, monetary penalties should be imposed on them. It is the poor, who are unable to pay fines, who should be imprisoned. This is a rather modern line of argument.
Who created the wealth? Within that varna framework, given the occupations Brahmanas engaged in normally (exceptions were permitted for exigencies), wealth must have been created primarily by Vaishyas, with some Kshatriyas and perhaps even the odd Shudras thrown in. Whenever there was greater urbanization and trade, this wealth-creation must have increased. In reacting to the texts and quoting from them, it is important to remember this, in addition to the chronological time-line. Why quote from the ‘Dharmashastras’, if we know those were primarily meant for Brahmanas?
Remember that most of the support (including financial) for the Buddha came from Vaishyas. Hence, if there is an impression that Hinduism is against wealth-creation, that’s because of selective and biased reading from the texts. There is a healthy emphasis on creating wealth, with limited expectations from the State. Indeed, there are arguments about a balance between the three objectives of dharma, artha and kama. But that’s not an argument against artha.