Yogakshema – Chanakya’s Model of Good Governance
Recently the terms “Governance” and “Good Governance” are being increasingly used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure “Good Governance” are undertaken. Thus, “Good Governance” is one of the prime focus of the Government in most of the countries as on date. The United Nations defines “Good Governance” as being participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law.
Yogakshema– the goal of good governance
In India, the concept of the welfare state and good governance is very old. An exposition of the same can be found even in our oldest scriptures of the Vedas. The, Shukla Yajurveda (6.31) includes a prayer wherein a ruler prays: “let my subjects be satisfied, my herds be satisfied, my people be satisfied, let not my people be needy.”
Similarly, Manu Smriti (7.3) says that without a proper ruler (i.e. government), the anarchy will result in citizens living in fear, and thus Kingship (i.e. government) was instituted for the protection of the subjects. This is further attested in the Mahabharata (Shanti parva ch.58) which declares the protection of subjects as the ‘cheese of kingly duties’ and then includes the various factors of good governance, ranging from punishing the criminals to supporting meritocracy, from ensuring security, to enabling financial transactions, as the means for ensuring this ‘protection of the subjects.’
Chanakya defines a ruler’s duties in the administration of the country in three-fold:
- Raksha or protection of the state from external aggression,
- Palana or maintenance of law and order within the state and
- Yogakshema or safeguarding the welfare of the people.
In other words, ‘Yogakshema’ or the welfare of the people was the ultimate goal of any ruler or government and good governance was the means to achieve it. But, this exposition of Yogakshema and thus of good governance was not limited to the material welfare only, i.e social, political, and economic welfare of the people only, but included spiritual and moral well-being as well.
Thus, writing about the Indian conception of Yogakshema as expounded by Chanakya, M.M. Sankhdher in his book “Yogakshema: The Indian Model of Welfare State” says: “Chanakya over-reached the modern concept in that his Yogakshema aims at an all-round development, material as well as spiritual, of the society as well as of the individual. It involves the well-being of the poorest of the poor. The Chanakyan state, ensured freedom, happiness, prosperity, and full-fledged development of human personality. Yogakshema demanded a higher moral consciousness both at the elites’ and at the common people’s levels.”
According to Chanakya a leader needs to be like a Rajarishi, ‘who is ever active in promoting the Yogakshema of the people and who endears himself to his people by enriching them and doing good to them’ {Kautilya Arthashastra, 1.7.1}. The word, Yogakshema, is a compound made up of yoga: the successful accomplishment of an objective and kshema: its peaceful enjoyment. Thus, peaceful enjoyment of prosperity, i.e., the welfare of the people, is given as much importance as knowledge, self-control and observance of dharma.
Yogakshema & Dharma – the basis of good governance
The concept of ‘Yogakshema’ cannot be perceived in isolation. Welfare is driven by human actions. But, all human actions do not by default lead to happiness and welfare. Thus, Gita (16.24) says, one should learn to differentiate between the actions that ought to be performed and those actions that ought to be avoided. And this division of actions into obligated and prohibited is in turn rooted in the concept of ‘Dharma.’
Dharma which literally means ‘that which upholds’ refers to all those actions which will cause material welfare, happiness, and spiritual upliftment of an individual in the human context. And these Dharmic actions have been enjoined as duties upon each person so that by their performance an entire society or a country achieves overall welfare and development. Thus, Yogakshema of a nation is directly dependent upon the performance of Dharma (i.e. Dharmic duties) by each individual starting with the head of the state.
Governance being the prerogative of the government, and the head of the government being the most important person who drives the whole governance mechanism, his performance of his duties, and his adherence to Dharma becomes the most vital element for achieving Yogakshema of all citizens. Thus, the popular saying stated ‘yatha raja, tatha praja’ (As is the king, so are the subjects). An able administrator who strictly adheres to Dharma will implement proper measures to ensure the welfare and progress of the people, whereas an incompetent Adharmic ruler will push the nation into chaos and suffering.
The head of the government cannot and should not act according to his whims and fancies. His sole purpose and duty is to implement good governance by adhering to the principles of Dharma so that the overall development of his citizens is achieved. Atri Smriti (verse 28) says that punishing the wicked, honoring the good, enriching the exchequer by just methods, being impartial towards the litigants, and protecting the kingdom are the five yajnas (selfless duties) to be performed by the ruler. Mahabharata (Shanti Parva Ch.90) says that a person becomes a King for protecting Dharma and not for acting capriciously. Similarly, Manu Smriti (7.27) says, a ruler who uses his power of ruling in a proper way, i.e. for the welfare of his citizens, will achieve all desires, wealth, and spiritual merit. On the other hand, a ruler who misuses his power for his selfish reasons will end up in destruction.
In other words, an incompetent and Adharmic person should never occupy the seat of the government. For this reason, the Indian scriptures stress again and again regarding the required competencies of the Leader. Kaultiya’s Arthashastra (1.19.39), states that a ruler’s happiness lies in the happiness of his subjects, in their welfare is his welfare, whatever pleases him (personally) he shall not consider as good. Whatever makes his subjects happy, he shall consider as good.
He also lists receptive mind, firmness of purpose, and training in all activities of the government as some of the qualities of a King. Similarly, Mahabharata (Shanti Parva Ch.90) says that a king should never abandon righteousness and should always be rooted in it. On the other hand, Manu Smriti (7.30), declares a person who is weak, ignorant, greedy, without discrimination of right and wrong and attached to sensual desires as being unfit to govern.
Hence, Dharma in its twin roles of duties and righteousness is the very basis of ensuring good governance and welfare of everyone. The government and the people involved in the governance are mere enablers who implement principles of Yogakshema.
Elements of Good governance
Though, good governance is a qualitative term, it can be analysed using certain parameters which can give definite information regarding the state of governance. The World Bank determinates of good governance include factors like political accountability, transparency, democracy, legal framework, an independent judiciary, importance to the rule of law, effective administration, and cooperation between the government and civil society.
Most of these factors could also be observed in the ancient Indian concept of good governance, Yogakshema. Arthashastra, deals extensively with law and order, political and bureaucratic accountability, the establishment of the rule of law, elaborate legal framework, prevention of corruption, human resource management and meritocracy.
Comparison between Yogakshema and modern models of good governance:
The ancient Indian model of good governance, which can be more properly called as a Dharmic model of Yogakshema, contained within itself most of the elements that are present in the models prevalent today. But, the glaring difference is in the fact that Yogakshema model perceives welfare in a wholesome integral manner, whereas the modern models perceive development as a activity that involves the accumulation of wealth without any reference to ecological and ethical aspects of an individual and the society.
Thus, elements of ethics and spirituality play no role in modern models, whereas they are very central to Yogakshema model. Which perceives governance in a more integral manner catering to all aspects of society.
The Yogakshema model not only enables the society to raise its overall quality of life on the mundane level but also assists to raise the level of consciousness on a universal level. It aims to provide full freedom for every citizen to carry out his Dharmic duties without hindrances so that everyone can attain overall welfare and happiness in their lives.
This it does by positioning the entire process of good governance and welfare state on the firm foundation of ‘Duties.’ This duty based narrative ensures that welfare state is not a privilege, not an entitlement that could be misused the way it is being misused in the modern rights-based narrative.
Instead, the welfare state and good governance are made the prerogative of every citizen and the ruler’s sole purpose is to serve his citizens, and he is bound by same obligations, same duties as his citizens. The only difference between a ruler and a citizen is that the magnitude and scope of those duties in case of the ruler is many times greater than in the case of citizens.
This stress on personal duties in the Yogakshema model naturally translates into the emphasis on ethics. In fact, ethics like truth, honesty, non-violence, etc. have been enumerated as Samanya Dharma– universal duties in Indian scriptures. On the other hand, though professional ethics is stressed in the modern models of governance, ethics as an obligation or duty are still missing.
Conclusion:
Thus we can conclude to say that there is a complete conceptual differences between the modern model of governance and Yogakshema… the distinctive features of Yogakshema, such as, Dharma vs religion, universality vs selectivity, duties vs rights, self vs ego, self-employment vs state-employment, above all the role of family in welfare makes it a wholesome integral model.
