Do you think that the Buddhist traditions have lent greater ethical, foundation to the ancient Indian political thought? Give your arguments. (2021, 20 Marks)
Ancient Indian political thought was never amoral: the Dharmashastras placed the king under dharma, and even Kautilya (Chanakya/Vishnugupta) tied the king’s happiness to that of his subjects (Arthashastra, Book 1, ch. 19). The question is therefore comparative. I hold that the Buddhist traditions did lend a greater and more universal ethical foundation, but a weaker institutional one.
Why the Ethical Foundation Was Greater
1. A universal rather than station-bound ethic. Buddhism rose against Vedic ritualism, animal sacrifice and birth-based inequality. It rejected varnashrama dharma and preached ahimsa and equal moral worth. Brahmanical duty varied with varna and stage of life; Buddhist dhamma binds king, monk and labourer alike, so it can judge the social order rather than merely sustain it.
2. The king inside ordinary morality. The Brahmanical texts developed a separate rajadharma and an apad-dharma licensing departures in crisis, while the Arthashastra ranks artha above dharma (Book 1, ch. 7). Buddhist texts grant rulers no such exemption. In Ashvaghosha‘s Buddhacharita the ideal king is atmajit, self-conquered: calm, learned, generous, truthful, and loved rather than feared. The Jataka dasa-raja-dhamma adds self-sacrifice, non-anger and non-violence, and the king is to keep learned, virtuous ministers and devote himself to his people’s welfare.
3. Righteousness in foreign policy. The Arthashastra permits kutayuddha (treacherous war) and covert killing of enemy leaders by secret agents. The Buddhist ideal of dhammavijaya rejects such means. After Kalinga, Ashoka urged his successors in Rock Edict XIII to renounce fresh conquest, and his separate Kalinga edicts assured unconquered border peoples they need not fear him.
4. Authority by consent, citizenship by virtue. In the Agganna Sutta the whole people elect the Mahasammata to restrain wrongdoing in return for a share of grain, making kingship functional and conditional. The Mahaparinibbana Sutta lists the Buddha’s seven conditions for the Vajji republic’s welfare, among them frequent assemblies, decisions in concord, respect for elders and protection of women, so a polity’s survival depends on its members’ discipline and moral conduct.
Why the Claim Must Be Qualified
- Not a monopoly. The Upanishadic idea of dharma as the “ruler of rulers” and the Shanti Parva’s rajadharma also bound kings ethically; Bhikhu Parekh treats the Buddhist and Brahmanical streams as variants of one tradition.
- Heterogeneity. Upinder Singh (Political Violence in Ancient India, 2017) shows Buddhist narratives accommodating armies, punishment and royal force; Ashoka’s own Rock Edict XIII warns forest peoples that he retains the power to punish.
- Ethics without machinery. The conditions on rulers carried only moral and reputational sanctions, with no right of resistance.
- Patronage. The Sangha’s dependence on kings limited its capacity to confront them.
The Tension Today
The contrast survives in Indian statecraft. At the UN General Assembly in September 2019 Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India had given the world Buddha, not yuddha (war); at the same forum in 2021 he quoted Chanakya. After the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor (7 May 2025) showed that a state speaking the language of Buddhist restraint still keeps Kautilyan coercion in reserve.
Conclusion
Yes, in kind and reach: Buddhism universalised ethics, bound the ruler by the same morality as his subjects, and made welfare and restraint in war conditions of legitimacy. It did not create the ethical foundation, which Dharmashastra also claimed, and it left that foundation unenforced. Its greater contribution is a standard for judging power, not a structure for limiting it.