LINKS BETWEEN KAUTILYAN ADMINISTRATION AND MODERN PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION:
1) Personnel Administration: A system of recruitment was there and job description as well. Salaries were clearly spelled out of ministers and government officials. It also stated a view of job permanency and increment in salary/position(promotion) if the official concerned provided extraordinary service. Personnel were to be transferred from time to time as per Kautilya because it would avoid corruption and misappropriation of government funds.
Removal and tenure of officials and ministers were at the pleasure of the King just like the Governor and Attorney General,etc. hold office at a term that specifies ' pleasure of the President'.

2) Public Administration: The King is the sole source of authority and appoints and dismisses personnel and divides the work of govt. into different ministries under several ministers and officials.  Kautilya stresses on the need for specialist and generalist personnel at different levels of administration with full accountability to the King,thus talks about division of labour and coordination between them for efficient administration. As discussed above there was a clear system of recruitment,pay,and terms and conditions of service very much resembling the modern State.
Modern state is more concerned about development whereas the Kautilyan model talks about collecting revenue and employing activities to help in expediting and ensuring revenue,so it talks mainly of control instead of development.
It talks about local self government  that very much resembles a precursor to the Modern State local self government model.

Kautilya's Arthashastra is more about political science that is how to conduct State affairs rather than focusing on the philosophy that underlies it. He is very practical in his approach with a strict focus on amorality(no moral principles or religious diktat) so that the King's rule & administration are neutral without offending anyone, and also on rationality and an organised as well as efficient way of running a system with a greta deal of focus on accoutability and honesty and vigilance.

KAUTILYA'S ARTHASHASTRA

KAUTILYA'S ARTHASHASTRA:
The Mauryan period was the era of major development in Indian Administration. Decentralisation was prevalent as the village units played a very important role as the base of administration since ancient times.Empires were divided into provinces,provinces into districts,districts into rural and urban centres for efficient administration. 

Kautilya's ArthaShastra is a work on Varta ( Science Of Economics) & Dandaniti(statecraft/Management Of State Administration) existing in the Mauryan rule. It was written sometime between 321 and 300 BC. It was retrieved in 1904 AD and published in 1909 AD by R. Shamasastry. It touches upon topics like functions of the chief executive,hierarchy,bureaucracy,corruption,local administration,supervisory management,motivation,morale and job description. 

The most noticeable aspect of the Arthashastra is its emphasis on Public  Welfare even in an autocratic agrarian State. That is where its timelessness lies.

It is composed in the form of brief statements called Sutras and is compiled in 15 books(Adhikarnas),150 sections,180 chapters(prakarnas),6000 verses(sutras).

The 15 books could be classified under:
i) Concerning the discipline of economics and statecraft.
ii) Duties of government Superintendent.
iii) Concerning the Law
iv) Removal of thorns
v) Conduct of courtiers.
vi) Sources of sovereign State.
vii) End of six fold policy
viii) Concerning vices of the king and calamities that may arise as a consequence
ix) Work of an invader
x) Relating to a war.
xi) Conduct of a corporation
xii) Concerning a powerful enemy.
xiii) Strategic way of capturing a fort
xiv) Secret means like occult practices and remedies to keep of enemies or traitors.
xv) Plan of the treatise and thirty two methods of treating a subject.

Kautilya viewed the State as an institutional necessity for human advancement. According to him the State comprises of eight elements - King,Minister,Country,fort,treasury,army,friend and enemy. And State's prime function was to maintain law and order,punishing wrong doers and protecting subjects. 

The empire was divided in to a Home Province(capital territory/administrative unit) under direct control of the central government and four to five outlying provinces(States),each under a viceroy responsible to the central government. The provinces possessed a good amount of autonomy in this feudal-federal type of organisation.Provinces were further divided into districts,districts into rural and urban centres with a whole lot of officials in charge at various levels.Departments to carry out execution of policy were created in all of these divisions with specialists dominating in the Mauryan era. Elites were preferred in job recruitment and the procedure for appointing is the same as it is practiced today. A centralised data bank of all government transactions and records were maintained in an organisation of the centre just like the cabinet secretariat and this performed audit and inspection functions of the three tiers of govt that is local,state and central. 

This set up is very much similar to our present times where Union Territories and National Capital Territory are administrative units under Central rule where representative of the centre in the form of administrators/Lieutenant Governor appointed by the President rule the affairs under the direct supervision of the President & Central government.The states are under a governor(viceroy in olden times) appointed by and reporting to the President(King in olden times). The President is advised by his minister(s) and the sovereign power lies in the country's people. Also, the federal setup of powers given to states under the state list,and the district administration organisation and hierarchy. Audit mechanisms were in place and civil servants were recruited to perform the duties of policy implementation.

The King was head and his functions were military,judicial,legislative and executive,similar to modern state's functions of the President. And he was to be well equipped in all areas of study especially economics,philosophy,statecraft and the three Vedas. kautilya stated that whatever pleases the king only is to be avoided and only that which pleases the people is what needs to be followed. 
Kautilya stated that the king was like the Father and all the people/subjects of the country/empire were his children. That is how he is supposed to take care of them. This is conceptualised as Welfare State in Modern times.

Corruption was not tolerated at all and dealt with severely where the ill-earned money was confiscated. Kautilya had his own criteria for selection of officers for the same. Once basic qualifications were met he tested them on their attitude to piety,lucre/revenue,lust,fear. Those who completed this criteria of piety were appointed as judges/magistrates,and those who crossed the test of revenue became revenue collectors, and those pass the test of lust are appointed to the king's harem, The candidates passing the test of fear are appointed as king's bodyguards and personal staff. And those who pass all the tests are appointed as councillors.

There were two courts according to the Arthashastra called the Dharmasthya ( civil cases court) where the matters are disposed off on basis of dharma,procedural law,conventions,royal decree ; and Kantakashodhana ( criminal cases court) where accused is convicted on basis of testimony and eye witness of spies,etc. Similar to today's times where there are separate courts having the subject matter jurisdiction of civil or criminal issues. 

Agriculture was the mainstay and taxes on the goods produced as well as its imports and exports were the source of revenue and the expenditure focused on public administration,national defense,army,salaries of govt. officials. Agriculture plays an important role even today in our country.

Therefore,as one can see Kautilya's arthashastra deals with a proper strategy and system of centralised autocracy with a welfare objective in mind before performing any function by the king and his ministers. 





WEAKNESSES OF THE KAUTILYAN STATE:
i) Over charged with supervision - too much of checks and balances.
ii) Prominence on individuals instead of institutions.
iii) Fundamental mistrust of officials.


The Guptas carried forward the Mauryan legacy of administration in many respects.

EVOLUTION OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATION

 EVOLUTION OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATION:
Indian 'Administration' traces its earliest known form to the tribal system which later emerges as a monarchical system. We gain a lot of knowledge about ancient Indian Administration from ancient religious and political treatises. In the early Vedic period there were many tribes who elected their own chiefs and he handled all their responsibilities and the administration of the tribes and the Sabha( Assembly of elders) and Samiti(Assembly of people) were the tribal assemblies. The chief protected the tribe but had no revenue system or hold over land thus wars were resorted to and the booty shared among the tribes.

The first form of the 'State' in India can be traced back to the times of Manu(original name Satyavrata) the first King and progenitor of mankind according to Hinduism.People were fed up with anarchy as there was no neutral judge/arbitrator in between to solve issues of society, and so they appointed Manu as King and paid service fees as taxes for looking after them and ensuring mutual benefit and justice to everyone in society owing to his wisdom and philosophical attitude & the King was divine and regarded as descended from God. 

As per the Ramayana and Mahabharata/Later Vedic times it goes to portray the role of the King as the whole and sole of administration being helped by his principal officers who were the Purohit and Senani where the Purohit( Priest) wielded much more authority than the kshatriya(Warrior clan) kings. Other figures of administration were Treasurer,Steward,Spies and Messengers,Charioteer,Superintendent of Dices. This is also mentioned in the Manu Smriti and Sukra Niti.

No legal institutions were there and the custom of the country prevailed as the law and capital punishment was not practiced but trials took place where justice was delivered by the King in consultancy with the Priest and Elders at times. By the time Kautilya wrote the ArthaShastra the Indian Administrative system was well developed and the treatise of Kautilya gives a very first detailed account of the same

MARY PARKER FOLLETT

MARY PARKER FOLLETT

GIVE IDEA OF DYNAMIC ADMINISTRATION/BASED ON GROUP DYNAMISM

Book –THE NEW STATE 1920.

IN THIS BOOK SHE GIVES IDEA OF PERSUATION.

She advocated that individual capacity is limited. That individualism has some limitation and the excessive control in the organisation. Limit the efficacy (efiiciency+capacity) of the individuals. Therefore she suggested group efforts in the organisation. According to her groups contribute in both the action and efficiency. This is the reason she advocated group dynamism and group effort is more efficient and capable then individual.

                                                                                                                                 Chronologically she belongs to the classical era while ideologically to the behavioural era; actually she was very close to the behavioural era. She is considered as the bridge between classical and behaviourlist.

                                                

IN 1924 she wrote another very popular book. “Creative experience.” in this book she gave several ideas which were far ahead of time.

1)    Constructive conflict

2)    Functional authority

Constructive conflict:            neither good nor bad it is method to resolve the conflict that make good or bad.

Conflict is in irritable in the organisation. It is the expression of the difference in opinion. They should not be criticised but we should try to get benefit and to create something destructive.

Follet said that conflicts are the product of interaction of interest. And if the conflicts seed of the destruction found then the seeds of construction are also found. Conflicts can be used in both the manner constructively and destructively she suggested constructive use of conflict.

SHE DISCUSSED METHOD OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

1)    DOMINATION: she rejected it because of win lose situation. E.g. Vietnam war between U.S.A and Vietnam always destructive.

2)    COMPROMISE: She also rejected because both the side loose something no one can gain. She suggested integration as a new method of conflict resolution.

Through integration both side will gain.

1)    All the issue should be brought into open. (the real issue identification easy and simple)

2)    The real issues break in several parts.

3)    Then the symbolic issue shall be easily neglected- anticipation of the future cause of action.(circular response)

4)    The finally one will reach to the integration.

CHALLENGES BEFORE THE INTEGRATION/HINDRENCES.

       1. People enjoyed dominance.

       2. Theorisation of the problem

       3. Used language

         4.  Unnecessary influence created by leaders

         5. Lack of training to achieve integration.

FOLLET ON AUTHORITY:

Reject positional authority and advocated the idea of functional authority. She said “authority belongs to the job and rests with the job.”

Thus the delegation of authority became obsolete.

Depersonalisation of order. i.e. no one give order to anyone. Everyone will fallow the law of situation e.g. as the manager production and manager sales do not give order to each other but discuss the situation and act accordingly.

Fact control rather man control.

Responsibility:- every one responsible. It is better to ask for what anyone is responsible  or not, whom anyone is responsible.

Leadership:- functional leadership

She said that a leader is one who has specific knowledge of situation.

CHESTER IRWIN BERNARD

CHESTER IRWIN BERNARD

BOOK: - “FUCTION OF THE EXECUTIVE 1938”

Organisation is a social cooperative system.

       Informal organisation exist

Informal organisation is of immense importance. It cannot be ignored. The existence of formal organisation depends upon the informal organisation.

Bernard said that cooperative action is required in the organisation. Because individual efficiency is limited and following factor are responsible to it.

1)    Physical

2)    Social

3)    Biological

SYSTEM:-

Bernard opined that organisation is a smaller system of a longer system (society). It clearly refers that organisation function in a particular society. It is responsible to serve particular society.

Bernard is considered as the father of social system school. He is also known as 1^st behavioural scholar. Unlike the classical scholar, Bernard said there are following three element of organisation.

1)    Communication

2)    Willingness to serve

3)    Common purpose

Further Bernard said that the function of the executive is:-

1)    Maintaining the continuity of communication.

2)    Ensuring the willingness to serve

3)    Achieving the common purpose

AUTHORITY IN THE ORGANISATION:-

Bernard rejected the concept of positional authority. And advocated that “acceptance theory of authority”

Under this theory he said that authority dependent upon subordinate. If subordinate follow an authority than they leg smite that order. If they do not accept then that became meaningless.

Further he said that for smooth functioning of the organisation every order has to be accepted by the subordinate. In this regard, he opined that order is accepted if they fall into the zone of indifference.

According to him zone of indifference has following elements:-

1)    If subordinate understood it

2)    If orders are consistent with the organisational interest

3)    If orders are consistent with the personal interest

4)    Physical and mental capacity to comply.