Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Which of the following statements is/are correct about Arthashastra? 1. The Arthashastra is a primaeval Indian discourse on statecraft, economic policy, and military strategy. 2. It is written in Prakrit which is the common language of the Mauryan Empire. 3. He mentioned four Vedas and three sciences of government in it.

Which of the following statements is/are correct about Arthashastra? 1. The Arthashastra is a primaeval Indian discourse on statecraft, economic policy, and military strategy. 2. It is written in Prakrit which is the common language of the Mauryan Empire. 3. He mentioned four Vedas and three sciences of government in it. Correct Answer 1 only

The correct answer is 1 only.

Key Points

  • The Arthashastra is a primaeval Indian discourse on statecraft, economic policy, and military strategy. Hence, Statement 1 is correct.
  • It is written in Sanskrit. Hence, Statement 2 is incorrect.
  • This treatise is divided into sixteen covering topics concerned with the running of a state, taxation, law, diplomacy, military strategy, economics, bureaucracy, statecraft, politics, strategy, selection, and training of employees, leadership skills, legal systems, accounting systems, taxation, fiscal policies, civil rules, internal and foreign trade, etc.
  • The emphasis is on the uniformity of law throughout the empire.
  • Kautilya's Arthasashtra was composed between the 3rd to 2nd Century B.C.
  • It is mainly a work on the art of government.
    • In his view, for the smooth functioning of administration and for the welfare of the people, the king had to be acquainted with the four Vedas and four sciences of government (Anvikashaki, Trai, Varta, and Dandniti). Hence, Statement 3 is incorrect.
    • Kautilya's administrative and judicial structure was hierarchical in nature.
    • He emphasized the principle of equity.
    • He believed that law was an imperial command enforced by sanctions.
  • He was both a thinker and statesman.
  • He contributed to the formulation of some general principles capable of universal application and effective in all times and ages.
  • Arthsashtra sets the conceptual groundwork for making India the first welfare state.

Important Points

  • In Indian theory, State was usually thought to cover seven elements:
  1. The king
  2. The ministers
  3. The populace
  4. The fort
  5. The treasury
  6. The army
  7. The ally

Related Questions

Which of the following statement (s) is/are correct related with the Kautilya's Arthashastra? I. Kautilya's Arthashastra is a book on statecraft was written in Gupta Period. II. Arthashastra was written in the fourth century B.C. by Kautilya, from which it appeared a tradition of writing on and teaching of statecrafts because Kautilya acknowledges his debt to his predecessors in the field
Which of the following statement (s) is/are correct related with the Kautilya's Arthashastra?
I. Kautilya's Arthashastra is a book on statecraft was written in Gupta Period.
II. Arthashastra was written in the fourth century B.C. by Kautilya, from which it appeared a tradition of writing on and teaching of statecrafts because Kautilya acknowledges his debt to his predecessors in the field
I. The Arthashastra, attributed to the Mauryan minister Chanakya in the 4th Century B.C., is one of the earliest Indian texts devoted to political philosophy, and it discusses ideas of statecraft and economic policy.
II. During the Indian struggle for independence in the early 20th Century, Mahatma Gandhi popularized the philosophies of ahimsa (non-violence) and satyagraha (non-violent resistance),
III. Gandhian Philosophy was influenced by the teachings of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, as well as Jesus, Tolstoy, Thoreau and Ruskin.
Which of the above statement(s) is/are correct related to the Indian Political Philosophy?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Read the passage carefully and choose thebest answer to each question out of the four alternativesand click the button corresponding to it. To know language is to be able to speak it; even a childwho does not yet attend school can speak his or herlanguage. In order to speak a language it is important tolisten to it and to read a few pages in it everyday. A childpicks up language and learns to talk just as (s)he learnsto walk. Walking and talking comes naturally to a child asit grows. In our country, a child may grow up speakingmore than one language, if these languages are spoken inthe home and in the neighbourhood. we call this multilingualism. A child speaks a language or languagesmuch before (s)he starts going to school. To know alanguage then is first of all to be able to speak it as easilyand naturally as a tree year old child does. Later on thechild will learn to read and write in that language. In orderto read and write in a language, one has to speak it. But itis possible to speak a language but not able to read orwrite in it. A baby does not speak until it is nine monthsold but it understands a few words at six months of age.It has been listening ever since it was born, and even alittle before that. So the first strategy in speaking alanguage is to listen. It is necessary for one to __________ the language before(s)he writes in that language.
In a certain code language, O is written as R, R is written as A, A is written as I, I is written as N, N is written as E, E is written as P, P is written as T, C is written as M and L is written as L. How will PORCELAIN be written as in that language?
In this section, each item consists of six sentences of a passage. The first and sixth sentences are given in the beginning as S1 and S6. The middle four sentences in each have been jumbled up and labelled as P, Q, R and S. You are required to find the proper sequence of the four sentences and mark your response accordingly on the Answer Sheet. S1 : Policy, like many other terms, is a complex concept. S6 : Public policy is the outcome of the struggle between the government and powerful groups. P : It is a form of government control usually expressed in a law, a legislation, a regulation or an order. Q : Public policy is what a government chooses as guidance for action. R : A policy may be general or specific, broad or narrow, simple or complex, public or private, written or unwritten. S : It takes different forms. The correct sequence should be:
Read the passage carefully and choose thebest answer to each question out of the four alternativesand click the button corresponding to it. To know language is to be able to speak it; even a childwho does not yet attend school can speak his or herlanguage. In order to speak a language it is important tolisten to it and to read a few pages in it everyday. A childpicks up language and learns to talk just as (s)he learnsto walk. Walking and talking comes naturally to a child asit grows. In our country, a child may grow up speakingmore than one language, if these languages are spoken inthe home and in the neighbourhood. we call thismultilingualism. A child speaks a language or languagesmuch before (s)he starts going to school. To know alanguage then is first of all to be able to speak it as easilyand naturally as a tree year old child does. Later on thechild will learn to read and write in that language. In orderto read and write in a language, one has to speak it. But itis possible to speak a language but not able to read orwrite in it. A baby does not speak until it is nine monthsold but it understands a few words at six months of age.It has been listening ever since it was born, and even alittle before that. So the first strategy in speaking alanguage is to listen. To know a language one must be able to?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? What wrong with respect to India are the Europeans responsible for?