The use of the term dharma for law, nevertheless, was neither universal nor inevitable. This is borne out by the first century C.E.
author Kautilya's compendium Treatise on Politics (Arthaśāstra). The significance of Kautilya's work for the history of law in India rests primarily on the fact that it provides a different and in many respects unique lens into that history.
His treatise belongs to a distinct scholarly tradition with social and political priorities different from those represented by the science of dharma (dharmaśāstra), the primary discipline devoted to jurisprudential reflection within the Brahmanical scholastic tradition. Kautilya makes no attempt to reduce the variety of laws within society into the single category of dharma. Indeed, we do not find a single comprehensive term within the Treatise on Politics to refer to law as such, or even to the broad areas of religious and secular norms covered by the term dharma within the discourse of the science of dharma.
What is clear, however, is that Kautilya, both formally and in obiter dicta, argues for the plurality of law; law is not one but multiple. Although his text is later than the earliest documents of the science of dharma, it nevertheless taps into an alternate intellectual history that probably ran parallel to the one represented by the science of dharma.
The passage tells the reader that Kautilya 'makes no attempt to reduce the variety of laws within society to the single category of dharma'. This demonstrates his argument for the ________ of law.
The passage states directly that Kautilya argues for the plurality of law and that law is not one but multiple. Refusing to reduce the many laws to the single category of dharma is exactly an argument for plurality, so the answer is plurality.
Want more like this? Create a free account to practise a full test, track your progress, and get spaced-repetition review.
Practise on Mcqkart →🎓 Book an expert →