Few weeks back, I started reading Kautilya’s voluble Arthashastra an online edition in English. In this treatise, Chanakya, an ancient Indian polymath of period (375–283 BCE) has manifested some of the concepts which holds true and adjudge to the modern political or social life! While reading this book, noted down some of his concepts related to the art of living and house planning. His ideas about social living are simple but, propels it for a healthy civilized society. He preaches that everyone should live without any bone of contention. Here is little more about his thoughts on ‘House Planning.’
THE discovery of Kautilya’s Arthashastra in 1905 evoked worldwide interest for many reasons. For the first and, in fact, for all time it gave conclusive proof that the achievements of India’s ancient savants were not restricted to the speculative domain of philosophy and metaphysics. For the author of the Arthashastra, the so-called Indian Machiavelli, was without doubt a statesman of no mean merit. He was an idealist to some extent, most thinkers are, nevertheless he was a practical man with a rare insight into the affairs of men; and what is most significant, he was not wanting an a secular approach to the problems of actual living.
Among the best illustrations of his practical wisdom and legal acumen is the part of his work that deals with Civil Law, especially the section relating to the building of houses—not the building of temples, palaces, fortresses or secretarial offices, which are also described, but the construction of dwelling houses of citizens. The Dharma sutras consisting of aphorisms on law and custom which preceded Chanakya, do not say a word on building houses. The Smriti codes which followed him, contain only a few haphazard and scattered notions. This indifferent attitude of the contemporary writers to what must be regarded as an important consideration brings out the Arthashastra in its proper perspective.
Considerate neighborliness apparently the first and the last principle of Kautilya’s code. A drain or a pit for dirty water discharged from the interior of a house never allowed to be built within less than three feet of the neighbor’s wall. Fire-places, water stands, hand mills or husking mortars could, if necessary be installed nearer, but even they were to be kept clear of a neighboring house by at least a foot. No construction of a litter pit, drain, staircase, ladder or privy, was permitted to interfere with the public right of way, except in a temporary emergency, when, for instance, a privy could be put up for a woman in confinement or a drain laid to carry off the water during a ceremony or festive occasion. A public path of at least about four feet was always left between any two buildings, although the eaves of two projecting structures could sometimes be allowed to overlap.
At Taxila in the city of Sirkap and at Sisupalgarh in Orissa large blocks of dwellings are, in fact, noticed to be separated one from the other by narrow lanes. In order possibly to guard privacy, no doors or windows were allowed to face those of opposite house, unless between the two houses intervened a royal highway or main thoroughfare. The main entrance of a house obviously opened on to the street, but at the time of repairs a small side-door could also be opened into a lane. A neighboring house never allowed to suffer damage from rain water from an opposite house. The roof of a structure was either covered with mats, so that the rain water slowly dripped down or a parapet was built at the edges of the roof to collect the water and divert it through an opening to a harmless spot. A drain was always kept open while it rained, the consequences of closing a drain during the rain and releasing it afterwards being obviously annoying and harmful. Any damage to another person’s house water, urine or faeces was punished with a progressively increasing fine.
Whether Kautilya’s code was really written about the third century B C may be a disputed question, it is evident, however, that the laws related therein are surprisingly progressive and enlightened. They partake in a measure of what would now be termed house planning. Yet Kautilya’s main object appears neither sanitation, nor generally the comfort and convenience of the citizens. His principal concern, is with the removal of those causes that lead frequently to discord and friction and mitigate against neighborly conduct. It is with that end in view that he conceded that the owners could build their houses as they liked provided they did so by mutual consent and avoided all that was undesirable and unpleasant.
Whatever may be Kautilya’s aim, some of his laws are certainly in advance of many a modern municipal law and bye-law. The city fathers of our present-day towns could take a leaf with advantage from this ancient manual. What the what we need is a cleaner appearance, buildings with a good flow of water and urine or faeces, as Kautilya put it, was strictly forbidden and actually stopped entering public ponds.
sivaayyala 