Q4(a) · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks · 3 min read

← Q3 Q4 →

Do you think that the Buddhist traditions have lent greater ethical foundation to the ancient Indian political thought? Give your arguments

Topic: Indian Political Thought. Syllabus: Indian Political Thought: Dharamshastra, Arthashastra and Buddhist traditions; Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Sri Aurobindo, M.K. Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, M.N. Roy. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2021 and Indian Political Thought.

Revision summary

Buddhist political ethic centres ahimsa, restraint of craving, and a righteous king. Ashoka’s dhamma after Kalinga is the working Indian case of that ethic as policy. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a parallel science of danda and treasury, morally thinner on universal non-injury. Dharmashastra often ties the king to varna order; Buddhism judges the king by harm to all beings. The greater ethical foundation is true of the Buddhist-Ashokan stream, not of every ancient text.

Model answer

Introduction

Ancient Indian political thought is not only Kautilya’s reason of state. Buddhist traditions supplied an ethic of non-injury, restraint of the king, and public welfare that Ashoka’s dhamma made into imperial policy. That is a greater ethical foundation in one important stream, not a monopoly of all ancient thought.

Body

What Buddhist ethics brought

  • The Buddha’s teaching centres dukkha, craving, and ahimsa. Political violence is a moral problem, not only a technique.
  • The chakravartin ideal is a righteous wheel-turning king who conquers by dhamma more than by the sword.
  • Sangha rules modelled a disciplined community with debate, which is an ethic of collective self-restraint.
  • Compassion toward subjects, animals, and conquered peoples is a public virtue, not a private monk’s hobby.

Ashoka as the political case

  • After Kalinga, the edicts turn conquest into remorse and into dhamma as a civic teaching: kindness, truthfulness, and respect among sects.
  • Dhamma-mahamattas are officers of moral policy. This is state ethic, not only forest philosophy.
  • Religious plurality in the edicts is an ancient argument for a public morality above one cult.
  • Compared with a pure matsya-nyaya (big fish eat small fish) picture, Ashoka is the ethical counter-text.

Kautilya and Brahmanical statecraft

  • Kautilya’s Arthashastra is sophisticated: spies, treasury, and danda. Ethics is present as yogakshema, but success of the kingdom is the test.
  • Dharmashastra ranks duties by varna and stage of life. Political right is often the king’s protection of that order.
  • Buddhist thought does not abolish kingship. It judges the king by harm, craving, and care for all beings, which cuts against a closed varna ethic.
  • So “greater ethical foundation” is fair if the comparison is with unrestrained danda-niti. It is unfair if it pretends Kautilya had no moral vocabulary.

Arguments, not romance

  • Yes: Buddhist traditions lent a universal ethic of restraint and welfare that Ashoka institutionalised, and that later Indian public talk of ahimsa still cites, including Gandhi.
  • Yes: they challenged sacrifice-centred and caste-closed foundations of political obligation.
  • No, not alone: republican gana-sanghas, Ashokan borrowings from older dharma, and even Kautilya’s idea of a king’s duty to the distressed are also ethical.
  • No, not complete: Buddhist kings still waged war; the sangha could become an establishment. Ethic is a foundation, not a guarantee.
  • Habermas’s later deliberative ethic is a modern cousin of sangha debate, not a copy. The ancient gift is the publicness of non-injury.

Verdict

  • Buddhist traditions did lend a greater, more universal ethical floor to one major current of ancient Indian political thought, visible in Ashoka’s dhamma.
  • Ancient Indian political thought as a whole remains a conversation among dhamma, danda, and dharma, not a Buddhist monopoly.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  BU[Buddhist ethic] --> AH[Ahimsa and dhamma]
  AH --> AS[Ashoka edicts]
  KA[Kautilya] --> DA[Danda and arthashastra]
  AS --> ET[Public ethical foundation]
  DA --> ST[Reason of state]

Conclusion

Buddhist traditions gave ancient Indian political thought a stronger ethic of non-injury, royal self-restraint, and welfare, which Ashoka’s dhamma made imperial. Kautilya remains the science of power. The greater ethical foundation is real for that Buddhist-Ashokan current, not a erasure of the rest of the archive.

Quick related

Students also ask

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2023 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks

    Buddhist thought on Dhamma facilitates the emancipation of political action. Explain

    View answer →

  2. 2021 · Q3(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks

    "When a nation becomes devoid of arts and learning, it invites poverty." (Sir Syed Ahmad Khan). In the light of this statement, assess the role of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan as a reformer in modern India

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks

Feminist critique of the State.

Theories of the State

Feminists treat the state as gendered, not as a neutral referee. Pateman locates a sexual contract beneath the social contract. MacKinnon reads law as organised around male power. The public–private split hid household domination from liberal theory. Indian Article 15, Vishaka, and the 73rd Amendment are incomplete replies.

Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks

Affirmative action.

Equality

Affirmative action gives extra access to historically excluded groups. Ambedkar treated it as necessary for equal citizenship in a caste order. Champakam Dorairajan forced the First Amendment and Article 15(4). Mandal and Indra Sawhney framed OBC policy and the creamy layer. Jaffrelot shows the same tool as a political identity, not only a welfare device.

Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks

Equality of outcome as a political idea.

Equality

Equality of outcome is a political test of actual conditions, not of legal form alone. Marx’s classless society is a strong version; Ambedkar’s status equality is a civic version. Rawls allows unequal outcomes under the difference principle. Hayek and Nozick reject patterned end-states as unfreedom. Indian Parts III and IV mix rights with a drive toward less unequal results.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.