Paper I Political Theory and Thought PDF

Paper I, Political Theory and thought
B.A.(Hons),Paper I, Political Theory and thought
Fellow (illl), Political Science at ILLL, North Campus

Dr. Biswajit Mohanty, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi
Author
Dr. Ruchi Tyagi, Kalindi College, University of Delhi
Reviewer
Dr. N.D. Arora, P.G.D.A.V. College, University of Delhi
1
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
Table of Contents
 Introduction
o Kutilya on State
o 1.1.0 The Origin of State (Kingship)
o 1.2.0 The Organic State:The Saptanga Theory
o 1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty
o 1.4.0 Function of State
o 1.4.1 The Protective Function
o 1.4.2 The Promotive Function
o 1.5.0 Case for Political Economy
o 1.6.0 The Welfare State (Yogakshema)
o 1.7.0 Danda and the Notion of Law
o 1.8.0 Advocacy for a Strong Centralized Monarchical
Bureaucratic State in the Indian-Subcontinent
o 2.0 Dharama in Arthashastra
o 2.1.0 Dharama and Political Ethics
o 2.2.0 Personal Ethics
o 2.3.0 Socio-Political Ethics:
o 2.4.0 Provision for Apad-Dharma:
o 2.5.0 Concept of Dharma Vijay(Religious Victory)
o 3.0 Circumstantial Evidences
o 3.1.0 Kautilya and Aristotle
o 3.2.0 Kautilya and Machiavelli
o 3.2.1 Similarities
o 3.2.2 Variances
o 4.0 Contribution Of Kautilya
o References
o Summary
2
Kutilya on State
Kautilya, the great diplomat, politician, upholder of political unity and the
maker of the destiny of Magadh, was born in 375 B.C. in the historic city
of Aryavratain the Magadh Empire. He was born to a learned, though
poor, Brahmin named Chanak, after whom he came to be known as
Chanakya, the son of Chanak. Since he was well-versed in the art and
science of statecraft and diplomacy, he also came to be known as
Kautilya.
Figure: Chandragupta Maurya
Figure: Chanakya
He received his education in the Takshashila University, where he had

occasion to meet Chandragupta Maurya. After finishing his studies, he
taught at Takshashila for a while. Later, keeping in view his special
knowledge of politics and diplomacy,he was appointed by Chandragupta
as his Prime Minister. At that time, India stood divided into tiny
fragmented states. Chanakya played the historic role of bringing these
smaller states together and uniting them, for the first time, into a great
Indian Empire.The principal objective of Kautilya‟s life was (the
attainment of Dharma (ethical values), Artha (Economic welfare). kama
(material pleasures) and Moksha (Salvation). Despite the fact that
Kautilya was the all in all of the Mauryan Empire,
Besides politics, the other subjects touched upon include Economics,

Ethics, Sociology, Criminology, Intelligence & Espionage, Science of
Education, Warfare, Engineering and others. In the Ancient Indian Political
Thought, Kautilya‟s Arthashastra is a landmark, without parallel anywhere
3
else in the world. It negates the Western contention that India was not
attuned to political thinking.
We have generally been accustomed to begin our study of political theory

and thought with the concepts of ideal state of Plato and Aristotle and
then jump suddenly to the study of diplomacy of Machiavelli. Very few
people have cared to take into account that it was Kautilya of ancient
India who, too, had described the organization of a well-organized state,
and the qualities of an ideal
ruler, besides laying down the principles of practical politics and ethical
and moral order of the society.In fact, Kautilya‟s Arthashastra is a classic
on the nature of the State and the art of governance. Kautilya accepted
Monarchy as the most ideal form of State and, on that assumption; he
described in Arthashastra the domestic and inter-state policies which an
ideal state should adopt. Kautilya‟s description of these principles was
relevant not only to his times, but also continues to be relevant today and
would hopefully remain so for the generation to come.
it was after more than 2200 years that a Brahmin of Tanjore found the
handwritten manuscript of this book in 1905 in the Mysore Library. Sham
Shastri, the great historian published Arthashastra for the first time in
1909. The scope of this great classic is confined mainly to politics. It
contains 15 parts, 180 divisions, 150 chapters and 6,000 shlokas. the
Arthashastra. Though Arthashastra was authored by Kautilya at least
during 325 B.C., he lived the simple life of an ascetic and found time to
author his world-renowned classic, A brief sketch of the topics discussed
in the Arthashastra will facilitate the visualisation of the
comprehensiveness of polity. In the first place, the theory of kingship or
the activities and functions of the sage-king - rajarshivrittam has been
given a detailed description. The first, sixth and eighth books are devoted
to the elucidation of this subject.Kautilya discusses in the first book the
concepts of discipline and punishment;he goal of knowledge, appointment

of ministers, councilors, priests and spies and envoys; protection and
education of the princes; conduct of a prince kept under confinement;
treatment of a prince kept under restraint; duties of a king
(Rajapranidhi); duties of the king towards the female quarters and lastly
the personal safety of the king. The sixth book elucidates “the source of
the circle of kingdom”. It deals with the seven constituent factors of a
commonwealth which are the king, the minister, the country, the fort, the
treasury, the army and the friend. It constructs the categories which
make the ideal, in each of the factors listed.
The eighth book examines the vices and calamities of each of the
sevenfold factors. It analyses the troubles of the king and his kingdom,
the aggregate of the troubles of men and the group of troubles of a
friend. It makes an analysis of the relative gravity of the troubles of the
4
sevenfold factors and the monarchical orientation of the book is revealed

in its view of the king‟s troubles being the most serious.
Figure : Arthrashashtra contains 15 parts, 180 divisions, 150

chapters and 6,000 shlokas. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a
landmark, without parallel anywhere else in the world.
It negates the Western contention that India was not attuned to
political thinking
Though the Arthashastra is not a theoretical treatise on political science,

but as R.P. Kangle asserts, it is possible to trace some sort of a
theoretical basis for the teaching of the shastra. Monarchy is indeed
assumed to be the normal form of government. The entire teaching is
addressed to the king, the single ruler of the state.
Management Fundamentals in
Kautilya's Arthashastra -3
 Leadership Qualities
 be Ever Active
 Love for his team Members
 Consultation
 Respect to Spiritual people
1.1.0 The Origin of State (Kingship)
Kautilya regarded state as an essentially human, not a divine, institution.

This was in keeping with the early vedic view which looked at monarch
essentially as a human being, rather than a divine person. The theoretical
aspect of the State did not fall within the philosophical domain of Kautilya,
for he was not a political theorist.
5
Figure: As regards the ideal of kingship Kautilya writes,

"In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their
welfare, his welfare.
What pleases him he shall not consider as good, but whatever
pleases his subjects he shall consider as good."
Yet, his stray reflections on the origin of State help us have a better
understanding of his concept of State in its totality. And, the almost
casual mention of these ideas in his Arthashastra is hardly surprising, as
these ideas had already gained currency during the Mauriyan period.
Kautilya refers to the problem of the origin of the state during discussion
of spies among themselves. One party there argues that government
came into existence to counteract law of jungle that prevailed in society.
(I.13.6-9) Maatsyaanyaabhibhutah praja manum vaivasvatam raajaanam
chakrire; Dhaanyashadbhaagam panyadashbhaagam hiranyam chaasya
bhaagdheyam prakalpyaamaasuh; Ten bhritah raajaanaah prajaanaam
yogakshemvahaasteshaam kilvishamdanadakaraa haranti
ayogkshemvahaashch prajaanaam; According to R.P.Kangle, here, “we
have something like an original contract for the establishment of
monarchy”.
Kautilya was disturbed to find that people had to suffer the anarchy of
Matsyanyaya, the proverbial „judicial‟ tendency of the large fish to swallow
the smaller ones. He thought that it was primarily to get rid of this
Hobbesian kind of a situation which led people select Manu, the
Vaivasvata, as their first king. While selecting their king, the subjects
expected him not only to ensure their “safety and security” and “punish”
people with anarchic tendencies, but also to “maintain individual and
social order”. For this purpose, they empowered him to collect property
taxes or royal dues equivalent to “one-sixth of the grain grown and one-
tenth of merchandise”. The king was also authorized to act at once, as
Indra and Yama acted, while dispensing rewards and punishment. And,
acting as such, he could "never be despised". The prevailing view was
that if a subject disregarded the king, he would have to undergo not only
political but also divine punishment.
Thus, to Kautilya, the king derived his authority to rule from those who
selected him for this office and paid him property tax or royal dues to
enable him to fulfill the duties and functions assigned to him. Still, this is
no theory of a social contract such as is worked out in the works of
6
Hobbes or Rousseau. The purpose underlying those words is to dissuade

people from entertaining feelings of disaffection towards the ruler.
Did you know

1.1.0 The Origin of State (Kingship)
As regards the ideal of kingship Kautilya wrote,
"In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their welfare, his
welfare. What pleases him he shall not consider as good, but whatever
pleases his subjects he shall consider as good." Regarding the
qualifications of a king, he should be an educated, cultured, chivalrous
and a religious person."
Figure: Kingship
Qualifications of a King
 He Should be educated
 Cultured
 Chivalrous and religious person
1.2.0 The Organic State:The Saptanga Theory
Kautilya builds up his theory of the State as an organic entity on the basis
of seven elements, which he describes in his Arthashastra as Saptanga.
The seven elements, despite being enumerated separately, stand in the
closest possible relation to one another and are in themselves “mutually
serviceable”. Together, they constitute the State as an organism, “like a
chariot composed of seven parts fitted and subservient to one another”.
Though Kautilya likens the State to a Chariot, he conceives it essentially
7
as a living, not a dead, organism in which the Swami (the king) is the
spirit that regulates and guides the remaining constituents of the body-
politic. This harmony is essential not only to their own existence, but also
to that of the whole which they constitute together. Further, according to
Kautilya, of these seven elements, each subsequent element is inferior to
the preceding ones. Thus, the Swami or the King (first prakriti or
element) becomes superior to the remaining six elements. His
righteousness and other qualities would result in the righteousness and
prosperity of other elements, whereas his vices would multiply the
troubles and calamities of the other elements. In this connection, it is to
be noted that while Manu argues that various elements could gain
importance on different occasions, the Mahabharta considers all the
elements as supplementary to one another.
To an extent; the organic theory of State finds elaboration in the Ancient

Greek Political Philosophy. For instance: while comparing the State with
the human body, Plato had argued that just as a cut in the finger causes
pain in the body, similarly injury of one organ creates problems for the
other organs of the body-politic. Aristotle was of the view that no organ
and no individual have any value, if not considered in totality.
For instance, an arm is meaningless without the body. The Greek

philosophers wanted to avert the causes which endangered the unity and
solidarity of the city-states, whereas Kautilya aimed at
comprehensiveness of Anvikshaki, Trayi, Vaarta and Dandaniti.
Seven Angas, Prakritis, or elements were enumerated and elucidated by

Kautilya for describing “the nature of the State” in its totality. As laid
down in the first chapter of Arthashastra‟s Sixth Book, entitled Mandala
Yonih, theseare:
Figure : Hierarchy to denote Swami (King to Mitra allies)
1. The Swami, the sovereign King;

2. The Mantrin, the ministers;
3. The Janapada, the people and the territory;
4. The Durga, the fortification;
5. The Kosha, the treasury;
6. The Sena or the Danda, the army; and
7. The Mitra, the allies.
8
All these elements establish the nature of State. The Seven characteristics
that emerge from these seven elements are:
1. Unity, uniformity and solidarity of the state;
2. Stable and systematic administration;
3. Definite territory, able to protect and support both the king and the
subjects;
4. Planned system of security and defence;
5. System of just and proportionate taxation;
6. Strong and powerful state; and
7. Freedom from alien rule.
Through these elements, Kautilya is able to depict the various facets of

the state of his conception. Inclusion of Mitra (ally), Kosha (treasury), and
Sena (army) as separate elements in the formation of State may not be
acceptable today, but it had a marked relevance in an age when the
theory of Separation of Powers was not predominant and when the State
meant nothing but the sole embodiment of the highest executive
authority, subject only to the supremacy of laws. As a matter of fact,
while incorporating all these elements as constituents of his body-politic,
Kautilya is only according recognition to all the agencies which contribute
to the “moral and political existence of a community”. Moreover, by
including Mitra (ally) as a constituent element of the State, Kautilya has
succeeded in presenting the State “not as a thing in itself, but as one
entity among and in relation to many” in the international sphere, He
recognizes not only its sovereign character but also its interdependence.
His polity has, therefore, been rightly described by M. V. Krishna Rao as
“pluralistically dominated monism”. Kautilya, thus, furnishes us with full
and complete definition of the State.
The modern constituents of the State, such as sovereignty, government,

territory and population are covered respectively by the elements of
Swami, Amatya and Janapada in the Saptang theory of the State. In
modern times, unless a State receives recognition of other States, its de
jure status is not established. This element in the modern States may be
compared to mitra (ally). Though in the modern definition of the State,
there is no place for army and taxation, these are covered by the concept
of sovereign power, which exercises the function of coercion and tax-
collection.
A remarkable similarity between the Kautilyan and the Marxist
conceptions of the State has also been traced with reference to their view
of the class-character and the need of Danda and Kosha. R. S. Sharma
concludes his analysis with his observation that “Kautilya‟s Saptang
theory not only bears resemblance to the modern definition of the State,
but contains certain elements typical of the State expounded by Angels.”
Kautilya‟s concept of „State‟ is, however, vividly reflected in his

description of angas or elements of the Stale. He did not specifically
9
define the term „State‟ as he was essentially a man of action (a

councillor), and not a theorist. His concern for and emphasis on the
internal and external security of State was to save humanity from a sort
of Hobbesian state of nature, a state of war, marked by Matsyanyaya (the
strong, like the big fish, tyrannizing and devouring the weaker and
smaller ones). Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that, on the one
hand, Kautilya constructs the categories which make the ideal, in each of
the seven constituents; on the other hand, the eighth book of
Arthashastra examines the vices and calamities of each of the sevenfold
factors.
It analysis the troubles of the king and his kingdom (like gambling,
drunkenness, greed, anger etc.), the aggregate of the troubles of men
(being untrained, greedy, over-ambitious), the groups of molestators (if
most inhabitants indulge in armed conflicts), the group of obstructionists
(the majority of inhabitants being agricultural labourers), the group of the
troubles of the treasury (arising out of man-made and natural calamities),
the group of troubles of the army (because of loyal soldiers‟ resentment
on account of non-payment of salaries and wives‟ influence on solders)
and, lastly, the group of troubles of a friend (who could be influenced or
bribed and could turn neutral at times of crisis). Kautilya was of the view
that if a fault in one element affects other elements, then it should be
considered disastrous and has to be rectified.
Here, it is important to note that Kautilya provided for a mechanism to
prevent the king from becoming self-centered and autocratic dictator, by
keeping him under the control of sacred and social traditions, ethical
norms aimed at peace and prosperity of his people. The sovereign of
Kautilya is bound by the ethical norms of Anvikshaki, Trayi, Vaarta and
Dandaniti, which he can not change or alter arbitrarily. The happiness and
prosperity of the king consists in the happiness and prosperity of his
subjects. By accepting Praja Dharma as Raaja Dharma, the King of
Kautilya is accepted and adored as parens patriar.
Debate
1.2.0 The Organic State : The Saptanga Theory
“Saptanga theory is relevant in today‟s time “.
Comment Rules:-
1.You may write “for” or “Against” the motion.
2.Your comments must not exceed 150 words.
Do you think that method of internal grading is “fare?” Tick the

appropriate choice
1.Yes
2.No
3. Can‟t say
10
The Saptanga Theory - 1.2.0
1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty
Subscribing to monarchy as the ideal form of State, Kautilya has accorded

to the king “the highest place in the body-politic”. The Swami is the chief
executive head of the State and, is, thus “the consumation of all other
elements”. He is not merely a feudatory chieftain, but a variable
sovereign, owing allegiance to none. The word Swami is derived from the
word swayam which refers to self-determining. The Swami, therefore,
becomes a living and animate embodiment, which is subjected to be ruled
by none, does not follow any external rulings and is liable only to self-
imposed restrictions. He is, thus, the symbol of legal and political
authority and power. Distinguished from Raja or Rajan, Swami has the
reflection of political superior or sovereign. R.S. Sharma has accepted the
king as the sovereign for being the final deciding authority in the state.
Romilla Thapur has admitted the crystallization of sovereignty in the
king‟s court and also in the metropolitan centers, if not in the peripheral
tribal republics. A.S. Altekar has considered the existence of 16
Mahajanapadas as a proof of state formation during Mauryan Empire. R.P.
Kangle is of the view that “sovereignty is not intended to be transferred to
a council of noblemen in a sort of aristocracy or to representatives of the
people in a sort of democracy”, it is imbibed in monarch, the Swami.
Indeed, a reference to the problem of the concept of sovereignty is
immensely important. In Ancient India, there were sovereign States in the
11
sense that the holders of the political office of kingship could generally
make their „will‟ prevail by resort to „force‟.
Various scholars have only been denying the conceptual equivalent in

Sanskrit of the notion of State sovereignty, and not the historical
existence of actual powerful sovereign kingdoms. U.N. Ghoshal observes,
"In the history of our justice and political ideas, reference to the
overriding authority of the king's decree over all other judicial processes
is of high significance, for it clearly and unequivocally enumerates, for the
first time, the principle of the king's judicial sovereignty".
Debate 1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty

“The concept of “Swami” is irrelevant in today‟s time”. Comment
Rules:-
1. You can write “For” or “Against” the motion.

2. Limit your answer to 150 words
Did you know1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty
Kautilya's Arthashastra:-
Book VI, "The Source of Sovereign States" states that the king, the
minister, the country, the fort, the treasury, the army and the friend are
the elements of sovereignty.
1.4.0 Function of State
Kautilya‟s king was not to be a despot, exercising power through sheer

military force, but was to rule his subjects through affection. Accordingly,
the duties and functions that he is called upon to perform are of two
types: (1) Protective (2) Promotive.
Debate1.4.0 Functions of State

“The qualities, requisite training and obligations of the King, as described
by Kautilya, are equally relevant today as these were during Kautilya‟s
time.”
Rules:-
1. You can express your views “For” or “Against” the topic.
2. Limit your answer to 150 words.
12
Think
1.4.0 Functions of State
Do you feel that today‟s political leader‟s fails to strike a balance between
their “Protective” and “Promotive” functions?
Function of State - 1.4.0
1.4.1 The Protective Function
In so far as the protective functions that Kautilya expects the Swami to

perform, the following are of vital nature:
(1) Being the natural guardian and saviour (the parens patriae) of his
people, his highest duty is to protect : (i) the life of his people, specially
the ones in distress, the widows, the women without children, the women
with infants, the orphans, the sick and the indigent; (ii) hermits,
shrotriyas and students, and (iii) property of the people:
(2) To put down violence and maintain law and order:
(3) To avert dangers and command the army:
(4) To 'redress peoples' grievances:
(5) To punish the wrong-doers; and
(6) To administer justice impartially and in accordance with the sacred
law (Dharma, evidence (vyavhara), history (Samstha) and enacted law
(Raajasthasanay)
13
1.4.2 The Promotive Function
On the other hand, his promotive functions include the following:

(1) To promote the moral and material happiness and welfare of his
people, as in their happiness lies his happiness and in their welfare his
welfare;
(2) To enable them to pursue freely their independent efforts in life:
(3) To maintain unity and solidarity:
(4) To reward virtue:
(5) To promote agriculture, industry and arts;
(6) To regulate the means of livelihood especially of the labourers and
artisans; and
(7) To encourage education and help students.
In the exercise of these functions, Kautilya‟s King was all powerful. The
limits of his authority were imposed by the social and religious customs of
his State which have existed from times immemorial and with which he
was required not to interface. Further, the king was not to be a despot
exercising power through sheer military force. Instead he was to rule his
subjects through affection. Kautilya puts great emphasis on the devotion
and loyalty of the Subjects. Accordingly, he suggests that no king should
ever generate poverty, acquisitive greediness and disaffection among the
people. The qualities, requisite training and obligations of the King, as
described by Kautilya, have definite similarities with Plato‟s Philosopher-
King, and are equally relevant today as these were during Kautilya‟s time.
1.5.0 Case for Political Economy
Distinguished from the Nitisastra tradition, Kautilya made Political

Economy an independent discipline; propounded a theory of politics which
dealt with the immediate concerns of polity; emphasized the need for a
strong political centre in India. In a way, Artha is equivalent to both
domestic and international politics. It also comprehends criminal and civil
law and discussion of warfare. Thus, it is clear that the term Arthashastra
basically and fundamentally treats of political problems. Economic
problems occupy a very subordinate place in the scheme of the
investigations and discussions of the Arthashastra.
The use of the term Arthashastra for the science of politics has been a
subject of debate among scholars. The usual meaning of the term
Arthashastra is money or wealth and so the term Arthashastra should
ordinarily connote the Science of Wealth or Economics, and the Science of
Governance. But according to Kautilya, „the substance of mankind is
termed Artha (wealth), the earth which contains and is termed Artha
(wealth): the science which deals with the means of acquiring and
maintaining earth is Arthashastra, Science of Political-Economy. While
conceding that Artha denotes the avocations of men, Kautilya contends
that the term can also denote the territory where the people live together.
Arthashastra, thus, is the science which deals with the protection and
promotion of wealth and the acquisition, protection and governance of
14
territory. Kautilya definitely raised this classic to the level of a systematic,

comprehensive and rational-analytical branch of knowledge, owing to his
intensive treatment of all the related and kindered topics of kingship,
economics, social relations, law and diplomacy.
Kautilya believed that political order was responsible for and conducive to
the attainment of all round progress and prosperity and helped society to
achieve and scale new heights, to conserve and consolidate its
achievements, to maximize its gains and to promote proper and equitable
distribution of social gains. This is how Kautilya defines (I.4.4-6)
“Anvikshiki Trayeevartanam Yogakshemsadhano Dandah; Tasya
Nitirdandanitih; Alabdhalabhartha Labdhaparirakshini Rakshitvivardhani
Vriddhasya Tirtheshu Pratipadini”
The science of politics, thus, deals with acquisition and preservation of
rest of all other branches of knowledge. Kautilya, further, says that
politics deals with “the acquisition of what has not been gained (Alabdha
Laabhaartha); the preservation of what has been acquired (labdho
Paritrakshaniv); the increase of what has been preserved (Rakshit
vivardhani); and the bestowal of the surplus upon the deservers
(Vriddhasya Tirtheshu Pratipaadini).” This makes the scope of political
science truly comprehensive and humane, because it is not merely
concerned with law and order, but also with preservative and
developmental functions as well as with distributive justice so that the
surplus is bestowed upon the deserving.`
Here, Trayeee (the structure and knowledge constituted by the three

Vedas: Rig, Yajur and Sama); Anvikshiki (the philosophical systems of the
dualistic Samkhya and Yoga and the materialistic philosophy of
Lokayata);
Varta (which comprehends agriculture, cattle-breeding and trade) and

Danda (which is the mean to achieve Yogakshema, the welfare of all) are
the four considered branches of knowledge. Dandaniti deals with the
means of acquiring (Alabdha Labhartha), preservaton (Labhda
Parirakshim), accentuation (Rakshit Vivardhani) and righteous and due
apportionment (Vriddhasya Tirtheshu Pratipadini) of Anvikshiki, Trayee
and Varta. Rajadharma, thus, expected the dandadhara to ensure the
acquisition and preservation of dialectics; to aid the Vedas in so far as it
prescribes ways and means as integral part of the Vedic view of life and
culture. It aids Varta because both treasury (related to Varta) and
punishment (Danda) are necessary for the control of one's own kingdom
and those of the enemies. Since Dandaniti is so vitally essential for the
other branches of knowledge, Kautilya goes on to say that, it is on this art
of government that the course of the progress of the world depends." He
further asserts that, therefore, the (first) three branches of knowledge are
dependent for their well-being (or rooted in) on the art of punishment.
In an attempt to construct a systematic and balanced philosophy and
harmonious integration, Kautilya acknowledged the proximation of
15
Dharma, Artha, Kamaand Moksha as the four-fold pursuits of aspirations

of an individual. The similar philosophy of balance and harmonious
integration was preached for Dandadhara. As Kautilya proclaims that "the
King may enjoy in an equal degree the three pursuits of life: charity,
wealth and aesthetic desire, which are interdependent upon each other."
However, anyone of these three in an extreme degree, becomes injurious.
Nonetheless, he admits that wealth is a very significant emotional aspect
of existence.
Hence, he accepts the notion of the maximisation of wealth and territory,

a full treasure and power of punishment to control one's own people (in
the latter's pursuit towards Dharma, Artha, Kamaand Moksha) and also to
suppress the enemy.
Kautilya insists not on the fulfillment of one limited and partial aim, but
on success in all the fields. He asserts : “As Dharma is the basis of
wealth, and as Kama is the fruit of wealth, success in obtaining that kind
of wealth which is conducive to the promotion of Dharma, Artha and
Kama is comprehensive success”, which, in turn, leads towards the
realization of Moksha. Upon the just balance of first three, depends the
sustenance of life. If either of these - dharma, prosperity or sensual
pleasure – would be enjoyed in excess, it would destroy „not only the
other two, but also itself.‟ It was in the pursuit of humanistic aim that
Kautilya discussed all political variables, which might lead to the rise or
decline of the state including the influence of stars, mystical numbers,
religious superstitions and social practices. It was his singular
achievement to weave the influence of geo-political factors into his
science of administration, which is truly inductive in character.
Kautilya, however, followed the Smriti pattern in formulating his ideas of
the policy and the state. In the words of U.N. Ghoshal, Kautilya
contributed not only to the remarkable concept of Raajadharma in the
Mahabharta, but also to the incorporation of the Arthashastra material
into the old Smriti tradition. He, thus, constituted one of the most
distinctive characteristics of the political thought of Manu and Yajnavalkya
as well as of Bhishma in the great Epic Mahabharta.
1.6.0 The Welfare State (Yogakshema)
The „welfare state‟ in ancient India was realized as Yogakshema, the goal
of which was to realize all-round development, or the „holistic welfarism‟
material as well as spiritual and this development was of the entire
society, instead of an individual. Material prosperity was not to be
pocketed by a few, but there had to be its just and equitable distribution.
Material prosperity was never considered as an end in itself, instead it
was believed that material provisions are essential and it is the duty of
state to ensure this. It may be noted that Yogakshema was a forerunner
of the contemporary idea of Rama-Rajya and even Antyodaya (welfare of
the poorest of the poor).
16
To Kautilya, the State was subordinated to the society which it did not
create, but which it existed to secure. The highest office of the State is,
thus, an aggregate of the people whose welfare is an end in itself. Political
power is the means to attain such an end. The Kautilyan maxim: “Prajaa
Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam” (in the welfare and
happiness of the people lies the king‟s welfare and happiness), is
indicative of his emphasis on the equation of welfare Vs. power. Kautilya,
in fact, was the spokesman of „Udyaana‟, the establishment of
righteousness on earth, and aspired for Vaarta,enhancement to trade and
commerce. In the words of M.V. Krishna Rao, “Kautilya was a state-
socialist in the sense that he stood for the maintenance of the authority of
the State, for the extension of its functions and, thereby, established a
socialist State”. Good government ensued from the social welfare
measures that the State took, pursuing them diligently and consistently.
It was towards this end that Kautilya spelled out the measures for the
regulation of commerce and mines and other manufacturers.
Guilds and artisans were protected by the State. Kautilya's ideas, thus,
added up to more than "body of positive knowledge which has been
applied to industrial
technique”, and comprised a comprehensive social plan which aimed at

realizing Dharma through Artha. Kautilya envisaged a policy of state-
welfare, while leaving the individual to maximum of self-help. Realizing
the limited resources, Kautilya‟s state targeted its expenditure towards
the aged, the sick, the weak, the disabled and the poor and “those in
distress when these have no one to look after them.” The basic
assumption was that the rich and the affluent do have resources to
provide for their own welfare and the state need not allocate its scarce
funds for the purpose. Thus, Kautilyan state tries to maximize the welfare
function with resource constraints by adopting the notion of “help the
help-less”.
Moreover, Kautilya was against developing a „dependency syndrome‟ in
the society in which the individual continues to make larger and larger
demands on the state. Rather he preferred to create a social system in
which individual‟s initiative could be kindled so that the individual or the
family learns to solve its problems by self-effort. Kautilya‟s concept of
welfare treated family as a basic unit and enjoined upon the family to look
after its members in times of difficulty and crisis. It was considered the
moral responsibility of the family to look after the welfare of the
household. Here, Kautilya wanted the state to provide welfare in
manageable proportions. The policy of Kautilyan state conformed to the
welfare provisions to help a person towards “self-help” and also towards
the growth of his unique personality. „Cradle-to-grave‟ model of welfare
state was completely unsuited Kautilyan perceptions. A limited welfare
state, operating under social control, was eminently coincided with
Kautilya‟s notion of „Yogakshema‟ or the welfare state.
17

“Today‟s political leaders have failed in the “holistic welfarism‟ targeting
the materialistic and spiritual development of the entire society than an
individual”
Rules:-
1. You can write “For” or “Against” the topic.
2. Your answer should not exceed more than 150 words.
Activities
Kautilyan believed that the welfare of a state could be increased by
adopting the notion of “help the help-less”.
Carry out a survey in your society to find out how many people believe in
this and if they have actually experienced it.
Opinion Poll
„Cradle-to-grave‟ model of welfare state was completely unsuited
Kautilyan perceptions. Cast your votes on the same
1. Agree
2. Disagree
3. Can‟t say
1.7.0 Danda and the Notion of Law
Kautilya asserted that Danda (the coercive authority of state) must be

yielded with discretion. If it is used too harshly, the subjects are
distressed; if it is used too lightly, the king will not be held in awe; if it is
used in the proper manner, the subjects are happy and the realm
progresses. (I.4.11-15) Further, Kautilya never wanted to use Danda only
in narrow or prohibitive aspect. He asserted that it establishes law and
order in society and thus, indirectly brings about a natural tendency in the
average individual to obey the law of land, which renders the frequent use
of force unnecessary. It ultimately secures proper progress in religion,
philosophy and economic well-being. Hence, Danda enables the individual
and the state to have new achievements to their credit, to protect and
increase what has been acquired and to distribute the gains properly as
between the state and individuals, as also among the individuals
themselves.
Kautilya‟s Swami (the king), however, has to rely on Danda to maintain

the State as a going concern. Once Danda is removed from the scene, the
State loses its raison d'eire and is practically vanished. The king
(Dandadharabhave) keeps all beings in Swadharma straight jacket and
18
ensures that they cooperate with each other to realise happiness for all.
Categorically asserting the transcendental character of Nyaya (edicts of
kings) and the enacted law, Kautilya calls the king as the fountain of
justice. As he puts it explicitly, Sacred Law (Dharma), evidence
(Vyavahara), history (Samstha) and edicts of kings (Rajashasana) are
four legs of law. Of these four, the latter is superior to the one previously
named.
By superseding the Shastras, the king could promulgate new laws, but
their basic principles were to be rooted in the Shastras. U.N. Ghoshal
observes, "In the history of our justice and political ideas, reference to the
overriding authority of the
king's decree over all other judicial processes is of high significance, for it
clearly and unequivocally enumerates, for the first time, the principle of
the king's judicial sovereignty". Kautilya adds that the king who
administers justice in accordance with the sacred law (Dharma), evidence
(Vyavhara) history (Samstha), and edicts of kings (Rajashasana) will be
able to conquer the whole world bounded by the four quarters
(Chaturantam Mahim).
Kautilya, however, holds reason to be superior, when the king's law is in
conflict with the sacred law. "But, whenever Sacred Law (Shastra) is in
conflict with the rational law (Dharma Nyaya in king's law), then reason
shall be held authoritative…” Having dealt with the ordained and the other
prerogatives of the Swami, and the traditions and usages in regard to his
Dharma, one would tend to agree with Kautilya in so far as the
supremacy of reason is concerned.
1.8.0 Advocacy for a Strong Centralized Monarchical Bureaucratic State in

the Indian-Subcontinent
Bhisma in Mahabharata emphasized the tendency of all kingdoms to slip

into anarchy in the absence of a strong political order. Kautilya was,
altogether, convinced that society can never hope to be in peace without
a strong state. Realizing the dangers of anarchy and necessity to
transcend it by establishing order in society, Kautilya used the simile of
Matsyanyaya depicting larger fish eating the smaller when anarchy
prevails. It endangers both the social system as well as the individual‟s
sense of security and his yearning for future. Kautilya finds remedy in
strong ruler capable of creating order. Asserting for supremacy of the
king, Kautilya warns against tyrannical tendencies, which may result in
popular wrath and destroy the kingdom. He argues that “when a people
are impoverished, they become greedy; when they are greedy, they
become disaffected; when disaffected, they voluntarily go to the side of
the enemy and destroy their own master.” Hence, no king should give
room to such causes that may bring impoverishment, greed or
disaffection among the people.
19
Kautilya, perhaps, was the first thinker who envisaged an all-India state
or even empire with right laws and institutions, honest and clean
administration devoted to public welfare and right kind of relations with
other states. He identified Chakravartin ruler with one who rules the
entire land south of the Himalayas, which would cover the whole of the
present day India, with easy to defend natural geographical boundaries.
While J.C. Heesterman rejected the nature of Kautilyan state as being

centralized, R.S. Sharma has projected Kautilyan state as centralized
bureaucratic state and Romilla Thapur has asserted that circumstantial
evidence reflects some scope for federal relations among the peripheral
areas of Mauryan state while the core or central along with metropolitan
areas around Patliputra depict centralized elements of the state.
2.0 Dharama in Arthashastra
In the Arthashastra of Kautilya, the word Dharma is used in various

senses and it is essential to comprehend them to understand his political
thought. In accordance with its indigenous version, Kautilya considered
Dharma in its broadest sense as a network of duties and a code of
conduct which sustains both the society and the state. At least four
meanings of Dharma in Kautilya can be distinguished:
1. Dharma as Social duty;
2. Dharma as moral law based on Truth:
3. Dharma as Civil Law: and
4. Dharma as Performance of rituals.
In Kautilya‟s system, each individual has his standing in the social order
and has accordingly to perform his duties (Varna-Dharma). The
Brahmana was to devote himself to the pursuit of intellectual, religious
and philosophical activities. Consequently, Satya (Truth), Ahimsa (Non-
Violence), Brahmacharya (Celibacy), and Aparigraha (non-stealing) were
prescribed for him as aids in his line of evolution. The development of
power through Kshtra and protection of subjects were the main pursuits
of Raajanya or Kshatriya. Specialization in trade and commerce was the
preordained duty of the Vaishyas. To serve these three Dvija-Varnas and
also to pursue Vaarta were the duties of the Shudras. Therefore,
performance of one‟s duties (Swadharma) was an essential feature of
Dharma. Some further ideas about Dharma are found in the chapter
where Kautilya deals with law. These ideas could be grouped under
Dharma as moral law. According to Kautilya, there are four sources for
settling a legal controversy: (1) Dharma (Sacred Law), (2) Vyavhaara
(evidence), (3) Samstha (History) or Charitra (conduct of reputed
persons), and (4) Raajshasaana (royal edicts).
He says that if there be disagreement between institutional law and

practice and the authoritative texts on Dharma, or if there be conflict
between the texts and evidence, then the matter has to be settled in
accordance with Dharma. To Kautilya, Dharma is rooted in Truth. Of these
20
four, the latter is superior to the one previously named. By superseding

the Shastras, the king could promulgate new laws, but their basic
principles were to be rooted in the Shastras. He definitely stands for Truth
and Justice over evidence, the texts of the Dharmashastras and
institutional history and practice.
Kautilya also uses the term Dharma in the sense of Civil Law. The third
book of the Arthashastra is called “Concerning Dharma” (Dharmasthiya).
It deals with the determination of forms of agreements, the determination
of legal disputes, marriage, recovery of debts, deposits, rules regarding
slaves and labourers, co-operative undertakings, rescission of purchases
and sales, resumption of gifts and sale without ownership, ownership,
robbery, defamation, assault, gambling etc. In fact, the meaning of
Dharma as Civil Law is borrowed by Kautilya from the earlier writers of
Dharmasutras. Customary aspects of Dharma also find illustration in
Kautilya‟s Arthashastra.
Adhering to Vedic and Brahmanic religion, he acknowledges rituals. He,
thus, reveres Agni, Varuna, Yajna, Ashwini, Vaishravan, Jayant etc. as
gods and recommends offerings to Indra (the God), Ganga (the river),
Parvat (the mountain), Samudra (the Sea), Mushak (the mouse), Naga
(the snake) etc. Calamities like floods, epidemics, famine, rats, tigers,
serpants and demons were considered as an indication of the displeasure
of God at man‟s immoral conduct. Kautilya, therefore, requires religious
ceremonies and prayers to avert such dangers. Kautilya was, however, a
firm believer in the moral order of the universe. According to him, there is
a close relation between kingship and Dharma. . The King (Swami) is the
fountain of justice (Dharmapravartaka).
It is the King‟s ordained responsibility to maintain Dharma and to protect

his subjects with justice. The observance of Dharma will lead the king to
heaven. Since the State has been created by divine ordination to preserve
Dharma, it has a moral purpose to fulfill. Politics may appear to be
divorced from ethics in part of the Arthashastra, but such deviations are
incidental, rather than belonging to Kautilya‟s system of polity.
Figure: Dharma in Arthashastra
21
2.0 Dharma in Arthashastra
2.1.0 Dharama and Political Ethics
To understand Kautilya‟s notion of Dharma and political Ethics, one has to

consider his emphasis on social dharma and his moral and ethical
considerations. The sociology varnashrama was oriented not to any
political and constitutional differences, but to the notion of Swadharma.
While the distinction between the virtues of the good man and the good
citizen was an important point in Aristotle‟s Politics, the performance of
one‟s own duties was the uppermost consideration of Kautilya‟s
Arthashastra. For instance, a good Kshatriya is one who faithfully adheres
to the duties of the Kshatriya. Similarly, a good Shudra is the one who is
faithful in the performance of his own specific swadharma. To him,
adherence to the Swadharma is a social task, it serves the good of the
kingdom, it is an ethical imperative and, if performed in the spirit of
disinterestedness, it leads to divine realization. A man has to perform his
own Dharma as it would result in the attainment of both mundane
prosperity and spiritual good.
According to the Varnasharama theory, a king has his own duties. He has
to carry on the duties of the Kshatriya house-holder. So long as he is true
to his duties which have been prescribed by the Vedas and elaborated by
the Shrotries, he is a good man and a good citizen. So long as he is a
22
house-holder, he is to care for his mundane prosperity. When the time

comes for retirement, he can give up political duties and concentrate on
austerities, meditation and God-realisation. From this type of synthetic
world-view, Kautilya discusses the duties or Dharma of the King and says:
“The King who administers (the kingdom) according to Dharma, evidence,
history and institutional practices and royal edicts, will be able to conquer
the whole world bound by four quarters”.
Kautilya prescribes four ways of conquering the earth and, after having
given the details of each, he says that having conquered the earth, the
king should enjoy it according to his own Dharma. According to the
traditional Hindu view, which is fully subscribed to by Kautilya, it is the
duty of a Kshatriya King to expand his territories and conquer the
enemies.
To understand Kautilya‟s ethical and moral considerations, Ethics can be
divided into personal ethics and socio-political ethics.
2.2.0 Personal Ethics
If the “king of unrighteous character and vicious habits” fails, through

these weaknesses or otherwise, to protect people‟s welfare; So far as
personal ethics is concerned, Kautilya is an emphatic and determined
exponent of the moral philosophy) of kingship. According to him, an
accomplished king must be devoted to Dharma. He is called upon to act
as the “Promulgator of Dharma" (Dharma-Pravartak). Even if mendicants
and ascetics engage in improper proceedings, the king was to restrain
them under threat of punishment because if Dharma was transgressed, it
would result in the evil of rulers.
The king and his ministers, as upholders of the highest virtues, were to
act as to present themselves as a model for the masses. He was to be a
follower of Truth and Dharma, possessor of Trayee, and the protector of
his Praja (people). That is how Kautilya subscribed to the dictum "As the
king so the people”(Yatha Raaja Tatha Praja).
Creating the moral philosophy of kingship, Kautilya propounds the
doctrine of enlightened royal idealism and gives a comprehensive list of
qualities which the king must possess:
1) Qualities of an inviting nature (Aabhigaamik Guna):
2) Qualities of intellect and intution (Pragyaa Guna)
3) Qualities of enthusiasm (Utsaaha Guna): and
4) Qualities of self-restraint and spirit (Aatmasampad)
According to Kautilya, the king must realise the paramount necessity of
controlling his passions like lust (Kaama), Anger (Krodha), Greed (Lohha)
and Attachment (Moha). He must fight ceaselessly Shatru-Shadvarga, the
six enemies of the king: sex, anger, greed, vanity, haughtiness and over-
joy. Kautilya enjoins him to conquer the four special temptations:
hunting, gambling, drinking, and women.
23
he would “fall a prey either to the fury of his own subjects or that of his
enemies‟.
In his remarkable insistence on the conquest of the senses, Kautilya says
that intensity of lust and other appetites provokes one‟s own people,
while lack of policy creates enemies. Hence, according to him, sensuality
and impoliteness are species of demonic actions. In his remarkable stress
on the conquest of passion, Kautilya appears to V.P. Varma, “to be a sage
and a seer and not a mere political thinker”.
This moral philosophy of kingship constitutes a great contribution to
political thought. In the Western political thought, we find that Plato,
Aristotle, Cicero and Kant stress the significance of moral factors in
politics. For instance, Plato has stated that the highest guardians or the
philosopher kings should be wise, courageous and temperate. But, if we
make a comparative estimate of Indian and Western political thought, we
find that the stress on moral factors is far more pronounced in Indian
culture.
However, Kautilya, who is regarded as a theorist of political power and
conquest, was primarily concerned with the control of unregenerate
passions. This dominant concern with moral values was an effect of the
heightened and exalted character of spiritual truths in Indian thought.
Figure : Personal Ethics
Debates
Kautilya subscribed to the dictum "As the king so the people” (Yatha
Raaja Tatha Praja). Do you agree to this in the present political scenario?
Rules:
1. You can write “For” or “Against” the motion.
2. Your answer should not exceed more than 150 words.
24
Debates
If we compare the Indian and Western political thought, we find that the
stress on moral factors is far more pronounced in Indian culture.
Cast your vote:-

1. Yes
2. No
3. Can‟t say
Qualities of King
2.3.0 Socio-Political Ethics:
Under the concept of Raajadharma, the functions and duties of the kings
were analysed. The duties he was expected to perform were of two types:
Protective and Promotive. Under the first category, he was to protect the
life and property of people, maintain law and order avert dangers, punish
wrong-doers, administer justice impartially, etc. On the other hand, his
promotive functions included promotion of moral and material happiness
and welfare of the people, development of agriculture, industry, trade,
arts and education and regulation of the means of livelihood, etc. The
25
limits to the authority of the king were imposed by the social and religious
customs of his State which have existed from times immemorial and with
which he was required not to interfere.
2.4.0 Provision for Apad-Dharma:
The socio-political ethics (Raajadharma) of the king included preservation,

accentuation and acquisition of territory. Kautilya outlines techniques of
conquest, even relentless and ruthless conquest. He refers even to a
variety of means by which it may be possible for a king, aspiring to
expand his kingdom, not only to administer his own kingdom in
accordance with Sacred Law (Dharma), evidence (Vyavahara), history
(Samstha) and edicts of kings (Rajashasana), but also to pursue his
expansionist designs. Kautilya, in fact, allows the king to deviate from the
established path of Dharma and transgress its injunctions in times of
acute crisis (Aapatti).
Kautilya refers to various means by which the enemy should be
assassinated. He advocates espionage and battle of intrigues, furnishes a
long list of drugs and black magic to ensure the destruction of the enemy
and even goes to the length of asserting that money should be paid by
royal agents by playing upon the religious credibility of the people. He
suggests a variety of methods that are useful to a monarch in gaining and
maintaining power. Here, politics seems to have been reduced to the act
of seizure and maintenance of power by means fair or unfair. This
connotes the deliberate suppression of the autonomy of ethical means for
the sake of enshrinement of the political objectives of a monarch. Kautilya
has described various occasions when these immoral means could be
adopted. For example, corrupt officials could be killed, agitating rebellious
villages, tribes or cities could be destroyed; king could indulge in
deception; while leveling charges against his enemies, he could
encourage warfare against them. The king was further allowed to adopt
various ways and means to find out the enemies and the criminals and to
deal with them. He also describes the various means, both moral and
immoral, which a king could use to enrich his treasury.
In the conduct of international affairs, Kautilya recommends the use of

deception and immoral means to cause despair in the enemy camps
which could be smashed by spreading the belief that their defeat and the
victory of the king is inevitable. Similarly, some people from the enemy
camp can also be won over by various means. He also describes several
immoral means for deceiving and killing the enemy. Though these means
are immoral, their use in emergencies is considered essential by an able
politician, Kautilya also suggest several moral and immoral ways and
means of killing the defenders of forts, collection of taxes and creating
dissensions among the people. The king is also allowed to first disturb
peace and encourage treason, to burn treasury, fields, and even the
harems of women. After having indulged in all such immoral activities, he
should project himself as an innocent person. He should express sorrow
26
for much events for which he may hold others responsible.

Kautilya deals with at least five circumstances, when deviation from
ethical means is acknowledged:
1) To collect revenue for royal treasury at the time of crisis;
2) To identify and arrest corrupt and disloyal officials of the state;
3) To identify and arrest offenders and criminals;
4) To vanish any probable conspiracy or rebellion either by princes,
nobles, officials or by ordinary subjects; and
5) To pursue expansionist politics in the enemy state or to punish a
king who is against Dharma. But, an advocacy of cruel political diplomacy
does not imply that Kautilya separates politics from ethics. He, in fact,
teaches the virtues of self-restraint. He is a staunch believer in the
dominant moral concepts of the Indian tradition.
The fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the first Book of Arthashastra,
depict Kautilya as a fundamental believer in the ultimate triumph of the
virtues of moral restraint. Advocacy of ruthless and relentless policy and
techniques was only temporary, realistic, calculated and craft means of
politics and diplomacy, where the territorial conquest was to be
essentially followed by Dharma Vijaya
(victory of the religion).
In fact, politics was broadly conceived as „Raajaniti‟ or the Ethics of
Politics or Political Ethics. Due to varying circumstances, some deviations
and departures occurred from the fundamental norms of politics.
Consequently, politics became, at times, a matter of convenience and
expedience. Most of the earthly misdeeds were because of the deplorable
fall of politics from its original pedestal. Kautilya‟s Arthashastra is deeply
concerned with the complex situations of political life and offers solutions
to the various problems of politics.
2.5.0 Concept of Dharma Vijay(Religious Victory)
Prescribing various sacrifices, Kautilya, however, could not disprove of an

expedition of conquest. He only strives to humanize it as much as
possible. The king, who was out for a Dharmavijaya, was to remain
content with the formal recognition of his suzerainty and the payment of a
tribute by the conquered king; he was not to annex his kingdom or
disturb its administration (at one instance Kautilya disapproves even the
extortion of tribute in Dharmavijaya). If the defeated king died in war, or
it he was occupying the throne unwillingly; a suitable successor was to be
installed in his place. If annexation became inevitable, the established
laws and customs were to be respected and the new subjects were to be
treated as kindly as the old ones. We have very little authentic
information about the internal condition of the Mauryan Empire, but it is
not unlikely that it left untouched the autonomy of the powerful republic
of Punjab and Rajputana. The advice to refrain from annexation after
conquest was followed to an extent due partly to the uniformity of culture
and religion that prevailed in the states. Normally, in peace times, their
27
relations were not embittered by religious or cultural divergences or

animosities, and so the war did not spur the combatants to bring about
the utter destruction of each other. Internal autonomy was easily
conceded.
3.0 Circumstantial Evidences
A picture of India during Kautilya‟s life time is found in the travel records
of Megasthenes. The account is of mixed observations reflecting some
emerging facts, showcasing the relevance of Kautilya and his
Arthashastra, such as: (i) there appears to have been no institution of
slavery. Though inequality in property was permitted, there was some
sort of equality before law. People had equal right to all possessions.
According to Megasthenes, people, in general, believed in the moral
principle of equanimity in life resulting in ideal situation of self-regulation
instead of domination or servitude. (ii) The law, in general, did not play
much role in the lives of ordinary Indians. It appears that men of wisdom
were highly respected and played an important role. (iii) The state
assumed a variety of functions including law and order, trade, commerce,
weights and measures, system of production and regulation of prices,
care of markets, regulation of labour relations etc. (iv) The tensions
between the spiritual and material also surfaced during this period. On
one hand it reflected doctrine of unity; faith in Deity; principle of
immortality of soul; conflict between good and evil in the body; and belief
in future judgment after death. On the other hand, it imbibed zest for life
and enjoyment of the pleasures of the world though in due proportions;
which in turn paved the way to the view that the world is prison house,
the enjoyments of body are an obstacle to the realization of God and
must, therefore, be curbed. (v) A definite all-India view emerged where
indigenous people were “neither conquered by others nor sought to
conquer others.” (vi) Kings during this period were still under discipline.
(vi) India was consisted of number of small states which were constantly
at war with each other. In this prevailing disunity, Alexander invaded
north-west India and established an authoritarian rule; which in turn
provoked some rethinking and produced the political thinker, Kautilya.
28
Circumstantial Evidences
3.1.0 Kautilya and Aristotle
Kautilya (375-300 B.C.) comes closer to his contemporary Greek

philosopher, Aristotle (388-320 B.C.) in several ways. Just as Aristotle
was the first Greek political thinker to elevate politics to the level of a
science by separating it from ethical and moral laws, Kautilya too was the
first Indian thinker who transformed statecraft into an autonomous,
systematic and scientific study by separating it from both Ethics and
Religion. The methods of both Kautilya and Aristotle were analytic and
genetic. They first divided a whole into parts, studied each part
thoroughly and synthesized the results of their analysis back into the
whole.
29
Figure : Aristotle
They considered the views of their predecessor thinkers and philosophers,

pointed out their respective shortcomings and gave their own suggestions
to overcome them, so as to improve the overall quality of the prevailing
social; economic and political system. Even in this exercise, they were
inclined more to preserve the older values and ways of thinking, rather
than build castles in the air.
Aristotle, by presupposing the ruler‟s ability to govern the minorities,

entrusted him with the task of regulating the organised society. Kautilya,
too, entrusted his ruler with the responsibility of preserving and
protecting the social set-up which was becoming increasingly corrupt.
Like Aristotle, Kautilya maintained that it is absolutely unjust for anyone

to give up his social and political responsibilities in order to become a
philosopher or take up the responsibilities of wandering ascetic, a sanyasi.
Just as Aristotle had undertaken an in-depth study of the constitutions
and political organisation of the Greek City States of his times as well as
the ones which existed before him; Kautilya, too, had analysed at length
a number of polities known as Dvairajyas, Vairajyas, and Arajyas. His
description of the procedures of choosing a king and of organising
judiciary and administration in India were, by and large, similar to those
of Aristotle‟s Greek City-States.
Just as Aristotle had accepted the superiority of meritorious and able
philosophers over both the individual and the society, Kautilya too had
acknowledged the relative significance and superiority of religious
Brahmans versed in Vedas and Anavikshiki over the rest.
Like Aristotle, Kautilya had also realised the significance of ruleby the
noble elite. To both of them, the people co-exist not by dint of fear or
compulsion, but by the motivation to lead the noblest lives and attain the
maximum possible mental and spiritual results. They, thus in their own
ways, prescribe a code of conduct for the monarchs or the oligarchs and
look at the State as a union or brotherhood of men who are agreed to rule
and to be ruled. They, thus, acknowledge the underlying harmony
between the subjects and the sovereign, the people and the government.
They also recommended a number of methods by which the king could
get rid of traitors, rebels, assassins and bad characters. The objective of
both Aristotle and Kautilya was the establishment of a society which is not
only based on the principles of human dignity, moral responsibility and
30
enlightened patriotism, but also accords the individual his due place in the
overall social and political set-up. Despite these striking similarities, there
are some fundamental differences in the philosophies and strategies of
Aristotle and Kautilya. For instance, while Aristotle was eager to establish
an ideal State, Kautilya‟s primary concern was the proper administration
of a well-ordered State.
While Aristotle devoted himself to the comparative and critical analysis of
the political organisations of a variety of Greek City-states, and the
changes to which they were often subjected. Kautilya‟s basic concern was
the political stability of the monarch and the monarchy, the king and the
kingdom.
While Kautilya was primarily interested in the monarchic system and
wanted to make it strong and enduring: Aristotle dilated upon monarchy,
aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. His sociological network
distinguished several types of oligarchies and democracies based on the
character of the dominant class in each.
Kautilya takes little note of the transformations States constantly
undergo. On the contrary. Aristotle witnessed monarchy being changed
into oligarchy. Oligarchy into democracy. and democracy into tyranny.
Kautilya. refers to Sangha» (republics) ways of popular control over the
king, who, in turn, was cautioned against political instability. But,
sociological details of the Politics are practically missing in the
Arthashastra. Though Kautilya refers to Dharma, Samastha, Vyavhaara
and Raajashaasana as the sources of temporal authority; no practical
effective or constitutional limitations on kingly authority finds reflected in
the Arthashastra.
While Aristotle underlines the significance of constitutionalism and
constitutions, Kautilya upheld the sovereignty of the king and kept him
within the traditional maryaada (discipline) of Anvikshiki, Trayee, Vaarta
and Dandaniti.
In the times both of Aristotle and Kautilya, the institution of slavery was
widely prevalent. While Aristotle justified their exclusion on the basis of
qualitative differences between the master and the slave, Kautilya
confined himself to ensure the slaves‟ basic rights and facilities and
provided for their emancipation, without going into the question of
righteousness or otherwise of the social system it self.
Both Aristotle and Kautilya excluded from citizenship certain classes of
people and made no attempt whatsoever to hide their contempt for the
so-called lower classes, the ones who were engaged in manual and
industrial labour. Just as Aristotle would deprive the „slaves‟ from the
rights of citizenship, Kautilya would exclude the „shudras‟ from the
political process, so as to preserve the assumed superiority of the higher
classes of royal families, the Brahmans, the royal fighters and the
businessmen.
Aristotle‟s Ideal State was the Greek City-State and its social and political
life, Kautilya‟s ideal was the Vijigishu King, aiming at conquering the
whole of the country from the Himalayas to the sea (Kanyakumari).
31
In short, if Kautilya was philosophically closer to Aristotle, he was poles

apart from Machiavelli. Nonetheless, Aristotle, Kautilya and Machiavelli, all
of them continue to be relevant in their own distinct ways. It is, however,
difficult to say as to who would be relatively more relevant when and
where? Their respective relevance would ultimately depend on the social
and political situations and circumstances which keep on changing.
Activitie
“The methods of both Kautilya and Aristotle were analytic and genetic”.
Support this statement in not more than 150 words.
Did you know
Kautilya, a 4th century B.C.E. economist, recognized the importance of
accounting methods in economic enterprises. He realized that a proper
measurement of economic performance was absolutely essential for
efficient allocation of resources, which was considered an important
source of economic development.
Debates
“Kautilya was philosophically closer to Aristotle”,comment.
Rules:-
Similarities
32
Similarities
 Analytic and genetic

 Preserve the older values and ways of thinking
 Entrusted the ruler with the responsibility of preserving and
protecting
 Significance of rule by yhe noble elite
3.2.0 Kautilya and Machiavelli
Kautilya (375-300 B.C.) has often been compared with Nicolo Machiavelli
(1496-1527 A.D.), the modern Italian political thinker whose famous
reflections are set forth in his three complimentary works: The Art of War,
The Discourses on King and The Prince. Machiavelli occupies the enviable
position of being the first modern political thinker or philosopher in
European history, one who symbolized a revolution in political theory that
reflected the Renaissance spirit. Kautilya, on the other hand, inherited a
long tradition of pre-existing Arthashastra school of thought, to which he
had given a modernistic outlook and content.
Figure : Machiavelli
33
Exhibits
Figure:Kingship
Did you know

The Art of War (Dell'arte della guerra), is one of the lesser-read works of
Niccolò Machiavelli.
The format of 'The Art of War' was in socratic dialogue. The purpose,
declared by Fabrizio (Machiavelli's persona) at the outset, "To honor and
reward virtù, not to have contempt for poverty, to esteem the modes and
orders of military discipline, to constrain citizens to love one another, to
live without factions, to esteem less the private than the public good."
Written between 1519 and 1520 and published the following year, it was
the only historical or political work printed during Machiavelli's lifetime,
though he was appointed official historian of Florence in 1520 and
entrusted with minor civil duties.
Debates
“Both these thinkers introduced the formulae of elasticity in political
action”. Do you think this view is relevant in today‟s time.

34
Kautilya and Machiavelli
Similarities
 Duality of treatment of the feelings

 Interest of the state is paramount
 Introduction the formulae of elasticity in political action.
 Aproach the common political problems in the same spirirt
 Interest of state is paramount
3.2.1 Similarities
With the vast difference in the Italian and Indian historical, geographical
and cultural situations, some subjects and themes of the Prince and the
Arthashastra are, nevertheless, common, for instance, the acquisition,
preservation, and expansion of the State. Both realistically analyze the
methods by which a king may rise to supreme power and maintain it
against all odds. In both, we find the duality of treatment of the feelings
and susceptibilities of men and the tendency to legitimize force and fraud
in the interest of the State. For, both the authors, the interest of the
State, vis-à-vis the interest of a person is paramount.
Both of them held the belief that, through a proper and critical study of
history one could deduce not only the causes of maladies of society, but
also the cures thereof. Imbued with an enduring value, these precepts
35
have validity, not only for the writer‟s contemporary time, but for the
future too. One of the signal lessons of history is that in any particular
situation, alternative courses of action are open to the statesmen or the
monarch, though the choice offered may be limited. Accordingly, both
these thinkers introduced the formulae of elasticity in political action. For
political preservation, while Machiavelli singles out a class of aristocrats
for ruthless action. Kautilya considers anti-social elements and
conspirators as enemies of the state and, therefore, objects of
extermination.
There is another close affinity between the ancient Indian thinker and the
modern Italian thinker. Both of them approach the common political
problems in the same spirit and temper. Kautilya belonged to the
Arthashastra school which looked at the political phenomenon without
linking them in any way with divine agency or revelation.
The approach was thus religious and rational. The Modern Italian thinker
affected a break with the medieval way of thinking and reasoning and
adopted the empirical, or historical method of investigation and
emancipated the State from the bondage to ecclesiastical authorities. He,
thus, presented the art of kingship by delinking politics from medieval
influences of Christianity. Similarly, Kautilya reconstructed the science of
politics, distinct from the Dharmashaastra and Nittishaastra.
Machiavelli wrote his Prince with the professed object of indicating the
methods by which Lorenzo de Medici could make himself the master of
Italy, just as Kautilya had in mind the expansion of the Mauryan Empire
under the aegis of Chandragupta Maurya.
As far as the maxims set out by Machiavelli, these are often addressed to
princes as well as to the high functionaries who carry on the affairs of the
government and even the usurper or the new monarch. In a similar vain,
Kautilya‟ s stratagems for warriors and statesmen, as given in the
Arthashastra, rest on his deep learning, knowledge of human nature and
a sound discernment of the mosaic of motivation that inspire people. both
high and low. These trickeries have undoubted utility for tyrants and
usurpers but can equally be useful to the good kings too.
In the field of realpolitik, there is much that is common between Kautilya

and Machiavelli. Kautilya is aware that the Swami (king) can hardly feel
secure in a State where persons shorn of power by him are still alive and
well. Similar insistence was that of Machiavelli while cautioning the Prince
against any possible conspiracy and scandal. What brings the Florentine
closest to ancient India is his doctrine that whenever the interests of the
State are involved, the prince can adopt any means for the achievement
of this purpose.
36
Machiavelli maintains that the sole end of the prince is to make the
kingdom strong and united, establish peace and expel the foreign
invaders. For this noble end, any means would be satisfactory.To him, the
question of the morality of means is irrelevant so long as the end is noble.
The name of Machiavelli is, thus, intimately connected with the doctrine
that “the end justified the means”. He held that, like the art of navigation,
the art of government is also part of morals. However, Kautilya zealously
upheld the claim of morality to regulate personal and public life, he was
prepared to advise the Prince to ignore their maxims and resorts to unfair
and even immoral means to protect the safety and security of the State.
Dealing with the king‟s security against his sons, he asks unscrupulously
to banish or imprison a prince who has no love for his father. He should
be kept under duress. He should be prompted to thieving, robbery,
poisoning or may be allowed to conspire and strike the king and then be
put to death. Kautilya suggests a number of measures for the suppression
of persons of doubtful loyalties and criminal character. The king‟s spies
should act as agent-provocateurs so that such persons may be punished
by fine or banishment. Thieves and adulterators should be tempted to
commit crimes and then punished. They may be instigated to attack
caravans and villages and then killed by troops specially posted for the
purpose or arrested or poisoned secretly in sleep or intoxication.
For the suppression of the foes of the State, Kautilya advocates (the
methods of treachery and secret diplomacy. Such officers, who injure
State interest, should be prosecuted on trumped up charges of murdering
the king or adultery with the Queen.
In this way alone can all dangers arising from civilians be ruled out? The
most important task for the king was to ensure sovereignty and for that
he could use any means, however mean and petty.For financial
emergency, Kautilya recommends the use of force to extract money,
confiscation of property, unscrupulous use of poison and dagger. He
demands of a king an attitude of naked self-interest displayed in inter-
state relations where the State should legitimately use intrigue,
opportunism, treachery and violence. For the conquest of a world-
kingdom, everything is justifiable, including secret arms, fire, sword,
medicinal preparauons and poison, espionage, charms and temptations.
Similarly, when the Varnashramadharma, the four fold order, is in crisis
and when the survival of a way of life is at stake, Kautilya thinks no
means of protection as immoral. He advises his king to wield an octopus
like iron grip on society and to destroy disloyalty by a heavy and ruthless
hand.
37
3.2.2 Variances
Between the range of subjects covered by Machiavelli‟s Prince and

Kautilya's Arthashastra one can, no doubt, trace general resemblances,
but the two flow from radically different sources and imbibe opposite spirit
and ideology. The prevalent conception about Kautilyan and Machiavellian
traits is founded on the monumental error of viewing their thinking
independently of their basic premise and postulates.
The typically Indian conception of a synthetic philosophy, comprising all
knowledge on diverse human affairs, stands in contrast with the Italian
analytical and materialistic approach to social and political problems.
Machiavelli‟s empirical method, founded on historical data has no
equivalent in Kautilya‟s casual references to classical antiquity.
Machiavelli‟s application of history to point a moral is different from
Kautilya‟s dependence on scriptures and conventional wisdom for
reinforcing the traditional moral order.
The more fundamental difference lies in the objectives of the two sets of
policies formulated by them. Machiavelli was motivated by a burning
patriotism to see Italy rise again from the ashes into a modern nation for
the deliverance of the unhappy land from decay. Kautilya, on the
contrary, was aspired to ensure the security and stability of the kingdom
so as to achieve Dharma in the subcontinent. Kautilya‟s major
preoccupation, unlike that of Machiavelli, was to foster and restore the
ethical values of Indian system both in method and in principle.
Kautilya‟s essentially spiritual disposition and Machiavelli‟s essentially
secular-material makeup stand out against each other. Though both
believed and prescribed to the rulers the rules of the game of politics, the
use of religion for political ends, their grounds for doing so, as also their
concepts of power and goals, were mutually exclusive.
Like Mahaabhaarta, Kautilya allows the king, for financial extortions from
subjects, use of techniques of extortion when the treasury is empty, the
army is small, and the king has no allies and friends abroad and is
invaded. This is an Apaad-dharma or “Dharma of distress” in a critical
situation. Disapproval of these methods in normal conditions is a settled
Kautilyan prescription. The ultimate political ideology in times of peace is
of inapplication to these Apaad-dharma situations that transgress the
cannons of Dharma.
Kautilya also does not wholly subscribe to the view of Machiavelli that
man is born bad and has no inherent virtue in him. That he is a
“compound of weakness, folly and knavery, intended by nature to be the
dupe of the cunning and the prey of the despotic”. On the contrary, he
admits that man has altruistic and good qualities alongside some selfish
and bad traits. He, thus, does not endorse the view of Machiavelli that
man is thoroughly bad and wholly selfish. To him, a man, apart from
being selfish and leaning, is altogether rational and is, therefore, advised
to follow a code of conduct on Dharma and to adopt immoral means to
deal with cunning.
38
Again and again, Kautilya asserted that the State was an organism on
which depended the happiness of the society and its individual members.
This moral base of the State was repeatedly denied by Machiavelli, for his
mission was to free politics from its slavery to theology and isolating the
phenomenon of politics, so as to study them wholly without reference to
the facts of moral existence.
The doctrine of political dharma, Raajadharma, incorporates the functions

and duties of the king, outlines the principles of social conduct and deals
with royal duties and civil and criminal law. In accordance with Manu‟s
proclamation of Dharma as the supreme principle in human life,Danda or
the royal power of punishment, in the double aspects of coercion and
protection, is equated with Dharma. The King is considered as the wielder
of the rod of punishment and, if he is not just, he has to compensate for
the loss and to perform penance. This involves extra-political sanction for
the king against violation of his duties of protecting the fourfold social
order. Dharma does not necessarily imply the contractual concept of
authority versus responsibility. Raajadharma is monarchical in its
orientation and reflects the personification of Dharma in the king and
identifies the king with Dharma. It further advocates the supremacy of
Dharma over the king. It would, thus, be wrong to infer that Kautilya, like
Machiavelli, tends to give a carte-blanche to the king. In contrast, it can
be argued that the Kautilyan king was to allow public meetings in temples
and markets.
And, when he talks of humiliating the public, he means that ill-treatment
is to be awarded to the foreigners and not to the natives. Kautilya pleads
for judicious taxation, a check on profits and measures to remove
poverty. Even in crisis, he suggests taxes to be levied on certain classes
of people and exemption for others. He also asks that the profits of the
fraudulent traders by usurped. Thus, in Arthashastra, there remains an
ultimate accountability to the rule of Dharma.
It is interesting to note Kautilya‟s perception of a two-fold standard of the
end of existence. On one hand, Kautilya admits the role of virtue in
principles and policies of government, such as, the behaviour of a saintly
king, the noble training of a prince, and restraints on the king. Kautilya
rejects Bhardwaja‟s advice to a king to involve his sons in sexual
indulgence for the sake of his own security. He condemns the advice to a
minister to usurp the throne by treachery and violence after king‟s death.
He suggests judicial pronouncements against torture. In inter-state
relations,he advocates Shapath (oath) as the basis of Pratigya (treaties).
Truthful kings should solemnly pledge and carry out duties with a sense of
dedication, he pleads. The second aspect is that of expediency. Those
officials who are found by spies to be disaffected for some just reasons
are to be conciliated by riches and honours. But, those disaffected for no
reasons and harming the king‟s interest may be secretly put to death.
While the loyal subjects should be honoured, the disloyal ones should first
be treated with conciliation, but if they remain disaffected even
thereafter, they should be entrusted with the work of revenue collection
39
and of inflicting punishment so that they incur people‟s wrath and then
they may secretly be put to death.
There is fundamental difference between the kingship of Kautilya and
Machiavelli. As for Machiavelli, he left the personal and private character
of the Prince of his upbringing out of sight, and treated him as the
personification of the State, wherein the private individual is inevitably
merged in the politician. On the other hand, Kautilya's characterisation of
the king was by self-control, wisdom, discipline and noble conduct. It
further emphasises acquaintance of the King with Trayee (the three
Vedas) Aanvikshiki (dualistic Sankhya), Vaarta (trade, commerce and
agriculture) and Dandaniti (punishment) and also restrains him from
Kama (lust), Krodha (anger), Lobha (greed), Moha (Vanity), Mada
(haughtiness), and Harsha (over-joy). The ruler should daily reflect on his
adherence to regular public appearance and punctual performance of his
routine duties and sacrifices. What is most significant is Kautilya‟s priority
to Dharma over Danda. While Machiavelli argues, “it is not necessary for a
prince really to have virtues, but it is very necessary to seem to have
them”, to Kautilya, King‟s departure from moral norms was a temporary
expedient for the restoration of those moral norms.The king was expected
to be a virtuous person in thought, word and deed.
If he had to be cruel by necessity, it was to make virtuous life possible for

all. So far as the ultimate objective of the State is concerned, Machiavelli
did not think much of the populace, the welfare of the less privileged did
not bother him, as these concerned Kautilya. The majority of citizens, to
Machiavelli, were content with the security of person and property that
the State provided them. He glorified the State and stressed the over-
riding claim of the State to the loyalty of the individual. He would not
concede that man had any right over and against the State. Man attained
his optimum development through subordinating himself to the society.
Machiavelli was of the considered view that the State would provide a
political framework essential to the development of mankind. On the
other hand, to Kautilya, the State was subordinated to the society which
it did not create, but which it existed to secure. The highest office of the
State is, thus, an aggregate of the people whose welfare is an end in
itself. Political power is the means to attain such an end.
The Kautilyan maxim: Prajaa Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh
Hitam (in the welfare and happiness of the people lies the king‟s welfare
and happiness), is indicative of his emphasis on the equation of welfare
Vs. power. Machiavelli insists that a good ruler is one who achieves the
good of the people by fair or foul means, Kautilya demands that a good
ruler should be a good man, besides being a good ruler. Kautilya,
therefore, was the spokesman of Udyaana, the establishment of
righteousness on earth, and aspired for Vaarta. enhancement to trade
and commerce. To conclude, Kautilya, in contrast to Machiavelli, is not
prepared to subordinate ethics to politics. His schematic diversion into
Machiavellian mode is a minor feature of his total conceptual make up.
40
Thus, the tenor of his though is both markedly different and

fundamentally opposite to that of Machiavelli.
4.0 Contribution Of Kautilya
The contribution of Kautilya to the subject is immense. He virtually

reconstructed the science of politics out of the tangled mass of
Arthashastra literature left behind by his predecessors and left his
impression on all subsequent thinkers. His Arthashastra proved to be a
vast storehouse of information and contained all the available data on
almost all the branches of politics. Dr. Radhakrishan Choudhary in his
book Kautilya„s Political Ideas and Institutions shows that writers like
Dandin, Bana, Samadeva Suri, Manu, Yajnavalkya and Katyayana were
greatly indebted to this great ancient Indian thinker. Dr. Ghoshal opines
that no only the admission of the great merit of Raajadharma in the
Mahaabhaarta but also the "wholesale incorporation of the Arthashastra
material into the Smriti tradition” can be traced to Kautilya.
It was largely due to Kautilya that the estimate of the four traditional
services, i.e. Trayee, Aanvikshaki, Vaarta, and Dandaniti became a
common place in the political thought of India. The six traditional types of
foreign policy, the techniques of applying the King‟s coercive authority,
the relative importance of the seven constituents of the State, also gained
currency in the ancient Indian political thought. His Arthashastra proved
to be a truly great treasurehouse of knowledge about statecraft and
diplomacy. It would not be wrong to hold that if he had been guided and
inspired solely by the ancient values of life embodied in traditional
Varnashramadharma, his Arthashastra could never have come to exercise
the wide influence it actually did. High ideals inspire men only when they
are adjusted and adapted to the actual needs of social life. Dharma is
indeed the highest value of life, but it should take due note of the
material basis of life of Artha and Kantaa, divorced from the actualities of
life, it would be like a great and beautiful mansion without any one to live
in and enjoy it.Varna-Vavasthaa was a sound ideal,but the realism of
Kautilya, however, "leads him to realise that departure from the healthy
rule are bound to take place, and accordingly he found place for the
offspring of mixed marriages in the new castes which he recognised."
A king should observe all the dictates of Dharma and morality in his
dealing with his subjects and also with States under ordinary
circumstances, but Kautilya permits him to violate them in crisis or if the
interest of the States so require. Kautilya knew that the pursuit of politics
requires compromise with the principles of justice and morality. He
realised the necessity of wielding the rod of chastisement and. at the
same time, cautioned the king against the undesirable consequences of
unduly severe punishment. He upheld the ideal of Chakravartin but
impresses it on the mind the Yijigishu that he should be content with the
recognition of his suzerainty by the less powerful chiefs and should not
think of annexing their territories. In all spheres of state-activity one finds
that Kautilya avoids the extreme and adopts the middle-of- the-road
41
policy. Masking Arthashastra a manual for the king and his

ministers/administrators, Kautilya perceived their problems with such
clarity of vision that his solutions became a veritable storehouse of
learning.
In the words of M.V. Krishna Rao, “Kautilya was a State socialist in the
sense that he stood for the maintenance of the authority of the State, for
the extension of its functions and thereby establishes a socialist State”.
Good government ensued from the social welfare measures that the State
took, pursuing them diligently and consistently. It was towards this end
that Kautilya spelled out the measures for the regulation of commerce
and mines and other manufacturers. Guilds and artisans were protected
by the State. Kautilya's ideas, thus, added up to more than "body of
positive knowledge which has been applied to industrial technique”,
and comprised a comprehensive social plan which aimed at realizing

Dharma through Artha.Using the name Chanakya for Kautilya, K.M.
Panikkar observed: „The system that Chanakya perfected or inherited or,
in any case, described, endured without much change through the ages.
The Hindu kings to last followed the organization of the Mauryan Empire
in its three essential aspects, the revenue system, the bureaucracy and
the police. The organization as it existed was taken over by the Muslim
rulers and from them by the British. If Indian administration is analyzed
to its bases, the doctrine and policies of Chanakya will be found to be still
in force.”
The essence of Kautilya‟s teaching was the promotion of a more scientific
statecraft, best illustrated in his pronouncements on diplomacy and inter-
state relations which have enduring value still. His contribution lay not
only in expounding the ramifications of the Mandala theory with its
pronounced postulates of peace through power, but also the value he
attached to Dharma Vijaya. Assigning equal importance to the three
principal factors of power, peace and time was a significant contribution of
Kautilya.
In his own days, the sage-diplomat witnessed and inspired the irresistable
expansion of the Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta and Bindusara.
Later, Chandragupta‟s grandson, Ashoka, built his great Empire on the
basis of Arthashastra and the scheme of administrative machinery
detailed in its pages. Ashoka bequeathed to history the ideals of Dharma
or Dhamma, a moral or ethical order which is the very basis of every
civilised society. Thus, Kautilya was the prophet of Ashoka‟s kingdom of
righteousness, for despite whatever Kautilya wrote on statecraft and
diplomacy, there is the persistent case of a serene atmosphere in the
Arthashastra where intellectual liberty and spiritual freedom are
guaranteed for the people through the Dharma, the ethical, and not the
theological, State. In formulating the details of his political ideals,
principles, plans and ethico-political strategies, Kautilya had taken
cognizance not only of the events of his days, but also the ones that were
likely to change the entire course of thought and action. That is why he
42
and his Arthashastra have their marked relevance not only for our times,
but also for the generations to come. Though the Arthashastra is not a
theoretical treatise on political science, but as R.P. Kangle asserts, it is
possible to trace some sort of a theoretical basis for the teaching of the
shastra.
Think
Express in not more than 100 words your views on contribution of
kautilya to the present political scenario.
Did you know
"Kautilya" was none else but "Vishnugupt Chanakya" of the "Nanda" and
"Mauryan" period. He was the best-known professor in the whole of
ancient India (teaching at the "Takshshila Gurukul") for politics and
"Arthashastra" (Economics).
Whatever is mentioned in "Kautilya's "Arthashstra", is based on human

behavior. For example, the book gives in detail what motivates, drives,
and identifies people who are enraged, frightened, greedy, and proud -
possible trouble creators in any organization, whether of commercial or
political nature.
References
ORIGINAL SOURCES:
Kautilya. Arthashastra, ed. R. Shamsastri, 1909.
Chanakya Niti, 1994.
COMMENTORIES :
Altekar. A.S .. State and Government in Ancient India. 1958.
Bandyopadhyaya, N.C., Kautilya : An Exposition of His Ideals and Political
Theory, 1927.
Beni Prasad, The State in Ancient India, 1927.
Theory of Government in Ancient India, 1927.
Brown, D.M., White Umbrella: Indian Political Thought From Manu to
Gandhi, 1953.
Choudhary, Radhakrishna, Kautilya‟s Political Ideas and Institutions, n.d.
Dikshitara, V.R., The Mauryan Polity, 1932.
Ghoshal, U.N., A History of Indian Political Ideas. 1959.
A History of Hindu Political Theories, 1966.
Jayaswal, K.P., Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of IndiaIn Hindu
Times, 1967.
Kangle, R.P., Kautilya Arthashastra, Pt III; 1965.
Kirtipal, Chandramani, et., al., Chanakya Niti Aur Jeevan Charitra, 1992.
Krishna Rao, M.V., Studies in Kautilya, 1958.
Kosambi, D.D., An Introduction to The Study of Indian History. 1956.
43
Mehta, V.R., Fundamentals of Indian Political Thought, 1992.

Mookerji, Radhakumud, Chandragupta Maurya And his Times 1960.
Parmar, Aradhna, Techniques of Statecraft in Kautilya‟s Arthashastra,
1987.
COMMENTORIES :
Prasad, Chandra Deva. :Mahan Rajnitik licharak : Kautilva. 1988.
Prasad, T.N., Essentials of Indian Statecraft:1962.
Ramaswamy, T.N., Essentials of Indian Staticraft, 1962
Sharma, J.P., Republics of Ancient India, 1968.
Shastri, U. B. Kautilya Arthashastra, 1988.
Sinha, H.N., Ancient Indian Polity, 1938.
Trautmann, T.R., Kautilya and Arthashastra, 1971.
Varma, V.P., Studies in Hindu Political Thought and its Metaphysical
Foundations, 1974.
Articles:
Sankhdher, M.M., “Kautilya-Philosopher of Modern Welfare State”,
Organiser, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 36, January 18, 1987.
“The Latest Work on the Kautilīya Arthaśāstra” Author(s): Franklin
Edgerton Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 48
(1928), pp. 289-322 Published by: American Oriental Society
“Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India”,
Author(s): Roger Boesche Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67,
No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 9-37 Published by: Society for Military History.
Summary
Kautilya, Chanakya or Visnugupta is considered as one of the most able

politician and minister in the Indian history. He was a philosopher and a
statesman of outstanding class and his classic compilation on material
success and polity- 'Arthasashtra' is valued even today. He was the
master of shrewd act of diplomacy. He believed in four ways, namely,
Treating with Equallity, Enticement, Punishment or War,Sowing
Dissension.
1.0 Kautilya on State

Kautilya was the minister in the Kingdom of Chandragupta Maurya during
317 – 293 B.C. He has been considered as one of the shrewdest ministers
of the times and has explained his views on State, War, Social Structures,
Diplomacy, Ethics, Politics and Statecraft very clearly in his book called
Arthashastra Kautilya‟s work is primarily a book of political realism where
State is paramount and King shall carry out duties as advised in his book
to preserve his state.
Although Kautilya proposed an elaborate welfare state in domestic
politics, something that has been called a socialized monarchy, he proved
willing to defend the general good of this monarchy with harsh measures.
44
A number of authors have explored these domestic policies, but very few
scholars have focused on Kautilya's discussions of war and diplomacy.
2.0 Dharma in Arthashastra

According to Chanakya, the primary duty of a king is to protect "Dharma"
or righteousness in society. That king who upholds righteousness and
virtue will have happiness in this world and also in the next. Another
significant statement made by Chanakya is that a king who uses his
power improperly and unjustly also deserves to be punished. "The sacred
task of a king is to strive for the welfare of his people incessantly. The
administration of the kingdom is his religious duty. His greatest gift would
be to treat all as equals." "The happiness of the commoners is the
happiness of the king. Their welfare is his welfare. A king should never
think of his personal interest or welfare, but should every try to find his
joy in the joy of his subjects."
3.0 Circumstantial Evidences

Kautilya‟s book came to be Chandragupta‟s guide. Each of its 15 sections
deals with a phase of government, which Kautilya sums up as “the
science of punishment.” He openly advises the development of an
elaborate spy system reaching into all levels of society and encourages
political and secret assassination. Lost for centuries, the book was
discovered in 1905. Compared by many to Italian statesman and writer
Niccolò Machiavelli and by others to Aristotle and Plato, Kautilya is
alternately condemned for his ruthlessness and trickery and praised for
his sound political wisdom and knowledge of human nature Kautaliya and
Machiavelli(1496-1527 AD) are both votaries of power and helped their
kings to expand their kingdoms.

The lessons from Kautilya's Arthashastra are relevant even today and can
be integrated into the modern context of corporate management towards
achieving the ultimate aim of corporate governance, which is to provide
value to shareholders and stakeholders. Kautaliya's Arthshastra (322-
298BC) is brilliant and comprehensive treatise on all aspects of
international relations, intelligence and good governance. This master
mind was the chief mentor and a minister who helped first emperor of
India Chandragupta Maurya to extend his kingdom to whole of India and
beyond up to Afghanistan.The political science propagated by him was
refered as 'Rajadharma'(Righteousness of the King) and
'Nitishastra'(Science of Ethics)with ethical course of conduct as hallmark
of internal and external policy of the state
45
46

Paper I Political Theory and Thought PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Paper I Political Theory and Thought PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Paper I, Political Theory and thought

B.A.(Hons),Paper I, Political Theory and thought

Fellow (illl), Political Science at ILLL, North Campus

Figure: Chandragupta Maurya

He received his education in the Takshashila University, where he had

Besides politics, the other subjects touched upon include Economics,

We have generally been accustomed to begin our study of political theory

concepts of discipline and punishment;he goal of knowledge, appointment

sevenfold factors and the monarchical orientation of the book is revealed

Figure : Arthrashashtra contains 15 parts, 180 divisions, 150

Though the Arthashastra is not a theoretical treatise on political science,

1.1.0 The Origin of State (Kingship)

Kautilya regarded state as an essentially human, not a divine, institution.

Figure: As regards the ideal of kingship Kautilya writes,

Hobbes or Rousseau. The purpose underlying those words is to dissuade

Did you know

1.2.0 The Organic State:The Saptanga Theory

To an extent; the organic theory of State finds elaboration in the Ancient

For instance, an arm is meaningless without the body. The Greek

Seven Angas, Prakritis, or elements were enumerated and elucidated by

Figure : Hierarchy to denote Swami (King to Mitra allies)

1. The Swami, the sovereign King;

Through these elements, Kautilya is able to depict the various facets of

The modern constituents of the State, such as sovereignty, government,

Kautilya‟s concept of „State‟ is, however, vividly reflected in his

define the term „State‟ as he was essentially a man of action (a

Do you think that method of internal grading is “fare?” Tick the

The Saptanga Theory - 1.2.0

1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty

Subscribing to monarchy as the ideal form of State, Kautilya has accorded

Various scholars have only been denying the conceptual equivalent in

Debate 1.3.0 The Element of Sovereignty

1. You can write “For” or “Against” the motion.

1.4.0 Function of State

Kautilya‟s king was not to be a despot, exercising power through sheer

Debate1.4.0 Functions of State

Function of State - 1.4.0

1.4.1 The Protective Function

In so far as the protective functions that Kautilya expects the Swami to

1.4.2 The Promotive Function

On the other hand, his promotive functions include the following:

1.5.0 Case for Political Economy

Distinguished from the Nitisastra tradition, Kautilya made Political

territory. Kautilya definitely raised this classic to the level of a systematic,

Here, Trayeee (the structure and knowledge constituted by the three

Varta (which comprehends agriculture, cattle-breeding and trade) and

Dharma, Artha, Kamaand Moksha as the four-fold pursuits of aspirations

Hence, he accepts the notion of the maximisation of wealth and territory,

1.6.0 The Welfare State (Yogakshema)

technique”, and comprised a comprehensive social plan which aimed at

1.6.0 The Welfare State (Yogakshema)

1.7.0 Danda and the Notion of Law

Kautilya asserted that Danda (the coercive authority of state) must be

Kautilya‟s Swami (the king), however, has to rely on Danda to maintain

1.8.0 Advocacy for a Strong Centralized Monarchical Bureaucratic State in

Bhisma in Mahabharata emphasized the tendency of all kingdoms to slip

While J.C. Heesterman rejected the nature of Kautilyan state as being

2.0 Dharama in Arthashastra

In the Arthashastra of Kautilya, the word Dharma is used in various

He says that if there be disagreement between institutional law and

four, the latter is superior to the one previously named. By superseding

It is the King‟s ordained responsibility to maintain Dharma and to protect

Figure: Dharma in Arthashastra