Chanakya's Arthashastra: A Book on Ancient Indian Statecraft

Table of Contents

The Arthashastra, a cornerstone of ancient Indian political and economic thought, was authored in Sanskrit by Kautilya, also referred to as Chanakya or Vishnugupta. Known for his wisdom and strategic brilliance, Chanakya was the mastermind behind Chandragupta Maurya’s rise to power, serving as his trusted mentor and chief minister. While Kautilya is credited with the work, scholars have speculated that multiple contributors might have added to it over time.

R. Shamasastry rediscovered the Arthashastra in 1904 and made it publicly available in 1909, followed by the first English translation in 1915.

The concept of Artha, one of the key principles in Indian philosophy, refers to material prosperity and is one of the Purusharthas (the four main goals of life). According to the Arthashastra, Artha is fundamental because Dharma (righteousness) and Kama (pleasure) are dependent on it.

In essence, Artha is the livelihood of individuals, and the earth is the primary source of that livelihood. Therefore, the Arthashastra is a comprehensive study of how to acquire and protect the earth to ensure the prosperity of a state, making it a key text on governance and statecraft.

The text is divided into 15 adhikaranas (sections), with 180 prakaranas (subsections), containing around 6,000 slokas (verses).

The first five sections cover internal administration (referred to as Tantra), the next eight sections focus on interstate relations (known as Avapa), and the final two sections address miscellaneous topics related to governance and leadership.

Debate over Authorship of Arthashastra

The Arthashastra’s authorship has sparked significant debate, particularly around the dates of composition and the identity of the author. There are strong arguments suggesting that the text might have undergone multiple revisions and additions over time, complicating efforts to assign it to a single author or time period.

The Accepted Historical View of Arthashastra’s Authorship

The traditional view attributes the Arthashastra to Kautilya, who is also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta. According to this perspective, the text was composed in the 4th century BCE, when Kautilya was serving as the chief advisor to Chandragupta Maurya. He played a vital role in helping Chandragupta overthrow the Nanda Dynasty and establish the Mauryan Empire.

This interpretation is supported by two verses found in the Arthashastra, which explicitly state that the text was written by Kautilya and make direct references to the Nanda Dynasty.

In addition to this, several other significant works lend credibility to this theory:

Kamandaka’s Nitisara
Dandin’s Dashakumaracharita
Vishakhadatta’s Mudrarakshasa
Bana Bhatta’s Kadambari

The scholar Kangle has provided strong arguments that support this traditional view, citing several factors that align the Arthashastra with the Mauryan era:

The style of the Arthashastra is distinct from texts like Vatsyayana’s Kamasutra, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Manu Smriti, suggesting an older origin.
The Ajivikas, a significant sect during the Mauryan period, are mentioned in the Arthashastra.
There are references to Sangha polities, which were prominent during the Mauryan era.
The description of large-scale agricultural settlements matches the administrative practices of the Maurya dynasty.
The administrative structure described in the text does not correspond with any other known dynasty, supporting the idea that it was written during the Maurya period.

Kangle also suggests that Vishnugupta was likely the personal name of the author, while Kautilya was his gotra name, and Chanakya (meaning son of Chanaka) was his patronymic name. According to this theory, Kautilya may have written the Arthashastra after being insulted by the Nanda king, which could explain his involvement in the downfall of the Nanda Dynasty alongside Chandragupta.

The administrative terminology used in the Arthashastra closely resembles the terms used in Ashoka’s edicts, providing further evidence that the Mauryan rulers were familiar with the text.

Traditional View of Arthashastra’s Origins

Despite the historical acceptance of Kautilya as the author, several scholars have questioned this traditional view, offering alternative interpretations of the text’s authorship and dating. Critics of the traditional view argue:

The two verses mentioning Kautilya and the Nandas could be later interpolations, added after the original text was composed.
The reference to Kautilya’s name may indicate that the ideas were taught or held by him, not that he necessarily wrote the text himself.
There is no mention of Kautilya in Patanjali’s Mahabhashya, which does reference the Mauryas and Chandragupta Maurya’s assembly.
- Counter view: The Mahabhashya is primarily a grammar text and only refers to historical figures in passing.
Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to Chandragupta Maurya, makes no mention of Kautilya in his Indica.
- Counter view: Megasthenes’ Indica survives only in fragmented form, and Megasthenes made several incorrect observations about India, such as his claims that land belonged to the king, that India had no slaves, and that Indians did not know how to write.

Additionally, there are notable differences between the Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ Indica in their accounts of fortifications, city administration, army structures, and taxation policies. These disparities lead some scholars to argue that the Arthashastra could not have been written in the same period as Megasthenes’ Indica.

Counterarguments Supporting the Traditional View of Arthashastra

In defense of the traditional view, there are compelling counterarguments that address the critics’ concerns:

While the Arthashastra does not mention the Mauryas, Chandragupta, or Pataliputra by name, this is likely because the text is a theoretical treatise on statecraft rather than a historical document describing specific events.
The text’s discussion of interstate relations may seem to focus on a smaller state, but the Arthashastra is primarily concerned with imperial ambitions and conquest. It outlines the strategies of a vijigishu (the would-be conqueror) who seeks to dominate the entire subcontinent. The elaborate administrative framework and high salaries recommended for officials suggest that the author envisioned a large, well-established empire.

Why Arthashastra is not considered a historical Source of Mauryan History?

The traditional view that Kautilya was the author of the Arthashastra during the Maurya period is supported by strong evidence, but it is also likely that the text underwent revisions and additions over time. Even if the Arthashastra was a collaborative effort, there is no reason to discount the possibility that Kautilya authored the core of the text during the Mauryan era.

This treatise can certainly be used to understand the statecraft, administrative structures, and political theories of the Maurya Empire, but it should not be read as a historical record of the Mauryas.

Role of the King in the Arthashastra: Power, Responsibility, and Governance

The Arthashastra provides detailed guidelines on how a king should rule. Kautilya asserts that the king must have absolute power and should concentrate all authority within himself. However, the king is also advised to honor the Brahmanas and consult with his ministers regularly. Though the king holds unrestricted authority, he must use it with wisdom and prudence.

Access to the King: A Key to Good Governance

According to the Arthashastra, the king must always be accessible to his officials and subjects. This is echoed in Ashoka’s Rock Edict VI, which emphasizes that the king must be approachable to ensure the smooth running of the state. The king should be cultured, well-read, and wise in order to understand the intricacies of his administration.

The Six Evils Leading to a King’s Downfall

Kautilya warns of six vices that can lead to the decline of a king’s rule:

Haughtiness
Lust
Anger
Greed
Vanity
Indulgence in pleasures

These vices can ultimately cause the king’s downfall, which is why Kautilya advises the ruler to live in comfort but avoid falling into a life of excess.

The King as a Protector: Ideals of Kingship in the Arthashastra

The Arthashastra presents the king as the ultimate protector of his people, responsible for their well-being and security. According to Kautilya, the well-being of the king is directly linked to the well-being of his subjects. The king must strive to ensure their happiness and prosperity, for only a content population can bring glory and stability to the kingdom.

The king is also expected to embody the ideal of a Chakravarti, or universal ruler, who not only protects his people but also expands the kingdom through conquest and military campaigns. Such a king is seen as the defender of the realm, responsible for protecting the state from both external threats and internal strife.

The Arthashastra emphasizes that the king must ensure peace and order within the kingdom. The fatherly approach to governance is strongly advised, where the king acts like a father to his subjects, especially the needy and vulnerable. This paternalistic attitude is considered key to maintaining a strong and stable kingdom.

Ashoka’s ideals of kingship partly align with those outlined in the Arthashastra. Ashoka emphasized the welfare of his people not just in this life but also in the afterlife, advocating for a more moral and compassionate rule, while Kautilya’s vision focuses more on the practical and strategic aspects of governance.

War and Conquest: The Spirit of the Holy War

Kautilya strongly believed that war was not only inevitable but essential for a kingdom’s expansion and survival. He recommended that before any military campaign, the soldiers should be instilled with a spirit of holy war, motivating them to fight in the best interest of the kingdom. For Kautilya, all means were justified in a war that sought to protect or expand the kingdom.

The Arthashastra advises kings to be strategic in their military campaigns, urging them to win over leaders, remove the root causes of conflicts, and always think ahead when engaging in battle. The text underscores the importance of careful planning and ruthless execution in war.

Internal Strife: The Threat to Stability

Conflicts among the people can often be resolved by addressing the root causes of disputes or by winning over influential leaders. The Arthashastra emphasizes that internal conflicts within the royal family are far more dangerous than quarrels among the common people, as they lead to widespread harassment and destruction. Such internal power struggles drain the king’s energy and distract him from more pressing matters, weakening the kingdom from within.

Kautilya cautions that these conflicts must be managed quickly and efficiently to prevent widespread unrest and ensure the stability of the kingdom. The Arthashastra advocates for decisive actions to eliminate any threats from within the royal family before they escalate into larger issues.

Training the Future King: Discipline and Education for Rulers

According to Kautilya, the future king must undergo rigorous training and education to prepare him for the responsibilities of leadership. Self-discipline is emphasized as one of the most crucial qualities of a king. Discipline, as described in the Arthashastra, can be inborn or acquired through education and experience.

Learning and the King’s Development

The Arthashastra lists several mental faculties that a future king must possess in order to develop discipline:

Obedience to teachers
A strong desire to learn
The capacity to retain knowledge
The ability to understand complex concepts
Reflection on learned knowledge
The skill to make inferences based on deliberation

The text advises that a king should not only be well-read but must also learn from authoritative teachers in order to grasp the science of statecraft fully. The king should constantly surround himself with learned elders, who can offer guidance and share their wisdom. Only a wise and disciplined king, who governs with the welfare of his subjects in mind, can rule successfully without opposition.

Training of a Prince

A future king must undergo extensive training in the sciences of governance, economics, military strategy, and administration. The Arthashastra suggests that this training begins in childhood and continues throughout the prince’s life, ensuring that by the time he ascends the throne, he is fully prepared to handle the challenges of leadership.

The prince should also be taught to surround himself with wise and capable advisers, as these individuals will play a key role in the kingdom’s administration. Moreover, he must learn to strike a balance between asserting his authority and seeking counsel from those more experienced.

Role of Ministers in the Arthashastra: The Pillars of Governance

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya insists that the king must have ministers to assist him in governing the kingdom. The text describes a king without ministers as being like a one-wheeled chariot—incomplete and ineffective.

Wise and Loyal Ministers

Kautilya emphasizes that the king’s ministers should be wise, intelligent, and loyal. The king must appoint individuals who possess deep knowledge and an unwavering dedication to the well-being of the state. However, Kautilya also advises the king not to become overly dependent on his ministers. The king must remain the ultimate authority and reject any improper advice given by his ministers.

The Arthashastra suggests that ministers should work together as a team and hold their meetings in private. They should coordinate with one another to ensure that all aspects of the kingdom’s administration are managed efficiently. Kautilya warns that a king who cannot keep his secrets cannot remain in power for long.

Precision in State Control: Governance Mechanisms in Arthashastra

The Arthashastra envisions a state that exercises precise control over the people, resources, and produce of its domain. The text describes a governance structure with centralized authority, but in reality, much of the day-to-day administration was likely delegated to provincial, district, and village-level officials.

Kautilya outlines a series of officials who play essential roles in managing the kingdom’s affairs. These include the samaharta (chief revenue collector), samnidhatri (treasurer), dauvarika (chief of palace attendants), antaravamshika (chief of palace guards), and several addhyakshas (departmental heads). Not all these officials may have existed in every kingdom, but the Arthashastra provides a comprehensive vision of how such a state could function.

Provincial Administration in the Arthashastra

The Arthashastra describes the kingdom as being divided into multiple provinces, each governed by a member of the royal family. These provinces were further divided into districts, which were subdivided into villages. The chief official at the district level was called the Sthanik, while the Gopa acted as the head of each village.

Provinces like Saurashtra and Kamboj were managed by Rashtriyas (royal officers), who answered directly to the king. The administrative structure was designed to ensure that every aspect of the kingdom—from taxation to law enforcement—was carefully monitored and managed.

Urban and Civic Administration

In cities, particularly the capital city of Pataliputra, the Arthashastra describes a well-organized system of administration. The city was divided into four sectors, each of which was governed by a Sthanik, assisted by Gopas who looked after the needs of 10 to 40 families.

The Nagrika, an officer in charge of city affairs, supervised public works, infrastructure, and the general welfare of the citizens. Additionally, there was a system of regular census to keep track of the population and its needs.

Spies: The King’s Eyes and Ears

Kautilya emphasizes the importance of a well-established spy network. According to the Arthashastra, the king should employ spies to monitor everything that happens in the kingdom, from the palace to the villages. These spies were responsible for reporting on the activities of other officials, ensuring peace, and gathering intelligence on neighboring states.

Interestingly, the Arthashastra suggests that female spies were often more effective than their male counterparts and recommends that the king employ women for certain covert operations. In addition to domestic surveillance, the king should also send spies to foreign lands to gather information on potential political threats and opportunities for alliances.

Seven Strategies to Manage Neighboring States: Diplomacy and Warfare

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya outlines seven critical ways for a king to deal with neighboring states. These strategies ensure that the king navigates interstate relations skillfully and enhances his power through diplomatic, military, and sometimes deceptive methods:

Sama – Appeasement: This involves creating non-aggression pacts with neighboring states when a direct confrontation would not be in the king’s best interest.
Dana – Bribery or Gift: Here, Kautilya recommends offering gifts or bribes to influential leaders or states to win their favor without resorting to military action.
Bheda – Divide and Conquer: This strategy involves exploiting divisions within an enemy’s ranks to weaken their unity, turning them against each other.
Danda – Punishment or Strength: Kautilya supports using force or military power when necessary to suppress opposition or defend the kingdom.
Maya – Illusion: Deception plays a crucial role in Kautilya’s strategic thinking. He suggests that kings may sometimes use illusions to confuse or mislead their enemies.
Upeksha – Neglect or Ignoring: In some situations, ignoring an enemy can be the best course of action, especially when the opponent poses no immediate threat or is not worth engaging.
Indrajala – Feigning Strength: This strategy involves faking military strength, creating the appearance of a more powerful army than one actually possesses, to deter potential attacks or conflicts.

Shipping and Maritime Administration: Ensuring Economic Prosperity

The Arthashastra delves into the importance of shipping and maritime activities, emphasizing the state’s role in overseeing trade and transportation by sea. According to Kautilya, each port was to be supervised by an officer responsible for monitoring ships and ferries, ensuring that they complied with regulations.

The state collected tolls on goods and services, which applied to traders, passengers, and fishermen alike. Interestingly, the text suggests that most ships and boats were owned by the king or the state, highlighting the centralized control over maritime commerce.

Economic Policies in the Arthashastra: Managing the Wealth of the State

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya outlines a comprehensive economic system, where the state actively participates in social and economic activities. The state controls nearly all aspects of trade, artisanship, and agriculture, striving to regulate these sectors to maintain stability and prosperity within the kingdom.

Controlling Trade and Markets

The state maintained strict control over markets and guilds of artisans and traders. Price regulation was crucial to ensure that essential goods were available to the population at fair rates. The state-appointed officials supervised these activities to prevent monopolies and exploitation.

Kautilya also places significant emphasis on poverty as a major source of potential rebellions. Therefore, the king is advised to ensure that there is never a shortage of food or money in the kingdom. Poverty creates discontent, which can ultimately lead to the destruction of the state.

Revenue from Land and Trade

Kautilya identifies the main sources of revenue for the kingdom as:

Land Revenue: Villages primarily contributed to the state’s income through taxes levied on agricultural produce. The text suggests that taxes ranged from one-fourth to one-sixth of the crop yield. Those who were provided with state-sponsored irrigation were expected to pay for these services as well.
Tolls on Goods: In the cities, the primary source of income was taxes collected on the sale of goods. The tolls were collected at the gates of cities as goods were brought in for sale.
Monopolies on Key Industries: The state had monopolies on critical industries such as mining, liquor production, and the manufacture of arms. These industries generated vast wealth for the kingdom.

Labor Systems in the Arthashastra: Bonded Labor and Wage Control

The Arthashastra also discusses different forms of labor that existed in the kingdom, including village labor, bonded labor, and slave labor. The term karmakara refers to a person who worked in exchange for wages, and Kautilya establishes a schedule of wages to ensure fairness. However, the text also acknowledges that it would have been challenging to implement these wage controls consistently across the kingdom.

Additionally, the Arthashastra mentions the existence of worker guilds or sanghas, which served as intermediary bodies between employers and employees. These guilds played a key role in regulating labor practices and ensuring that employers followed the rules established by the state.

Slavery in the Arthashastra: Regulating Dasas and Ahitakas

While Megasthenes praised ancient Indian society for its supposed lack of slavery, the Arthashastra presents a more nuanced view. Kautilya’s text contains detailed discussions on dasas (slaves) and ahitakas (those pledged to creditors when taking out loans).

The Arthashastra outlines various categories of slaves, detailing how they entered into slavery and the terms under which they could eventually gain their freedom. Both private individuals and the state could own slaves, and Kautilya provides a list of rules governing their treatment:

Slave Women: If a female slave bore a child to her master, she would be released from slavery, and the child would be considered legitimate. The text also prescribes penalties for those who sold or mortgaged pregnant slaves without making adequate arrangements for their maternity.
Male Slaves: The manumission (release) of male slaves was allowed upon payment of a fixed sum of money.

Kautilya also discusses the rights of slaves and their legal protections, marking an early effort to regulate this form of labor within the framework of the law.

The Arthashastra reflects a hardening of Brahmanical attitudes toward untouchability. The text stipulates that Chandalas (outcastes) could only use their own wells and were forbidden from sharing them with Arya women. If a Chandala touched an Arya woman, severe penalties would be imposed.

Furthermore, Chandalas and Shvapakas (dog breeders) were grouped together as antavasayin (people who live on the margins of society). These groups were required to live on the outskirts of villages and were prohibited from engaging with the rest of the population.

Comments on Vices: The King’s Dangers

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya discusses the dangers of vices and how they can corrupt the king. Vices, according to Kautilya, stem from ignorance and indiscipline. A king who lacks proper guidance and knowledge will inevitably fall prey to his destructive desires.

The text lists several specific vices that a king must avoid:

Addiction to alcohol
Lust for women
Gambling
Excessive indulgence in hunting

Of these vices, addiction to alcohol is regarded as the most dangerous, especially when the king shares power with others. Kautilya warns that giving in to these vices will lead to the downfall of the ruler and, by extension, the state itself.

The Saptanga Rajya: Seven Elements of the State

The Arthashastra was the first Indian text to clearly define the components of a state. According to Kautilya, the state is made up of seven interrelated elements that must function together for the state to thrive:

Svami (the king or ruler)
Amatya (the ministers)
Janapada (the territory and people)
Durga (the fortified capital)
Kosha (the treasury)
Danda (law enforcement or military power)
Mitra (allies)

These elements form the foundation of a well-ordered state, and each plays an important role in the strength and stability of the kingdom.

This concept of the Saptanga Rajya was later adopted in several important Dharmashastra texts, Puranas, and even the Mahabharata, underscoring its long-lasting influence on Indian political thought.

Inter-State Relations: The Circle of Kings and Diplomacy

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya offers a complex view of interstate diplomacy and warfare. The text introduces the concept of the raja-mandala (circle of kings), which divides states into four key categories:

Vijigishu (the would-be conqueror)
Ari (the enemy)
Madhyama (the middle king)
Udasina (the neutral king)

This model allows for a nuanced understanding of diplomatic relations, with the vijigishu always seeking to balance power and gain strategic advantages over his enemies.

Kautilya also describes six policies that a king must follow when dealing with neighboring states:

Samshraya – Seeking shelter with another king or fortifying one’s own position
Sandhi – Making peace when weaker than the enemy
Asana – Remaining passive when equally matched
Vigraha – Engaging in hostility when stronger than the enemy
Yana – Launching a military campaign when much stronger
Dvaidhibhava – Pursuing both peace with one power and war with another, as circumstances demand

Kautilya’s analysis of interstate relations is both theoretical and pragmatic, addressing the real-world dynamics of power, diplomacy, and military conquest.

The Three Types of Conquerors: War Ethics and Strategy

Kautilya identifies three different types of conquerors based on their motivations and methods of warfare:

Asuravijayin – The demonic conqueror, who seizes land, riches, and people, showing no mercy.
Lobhavijayin – The greedy conqueror, who seeks land and wealth for personal gain.
Dharmavijayin – The righteous conqueror, who seeks conquest for glory and is satisfied with mere submission.

While the Arthashastra provides a theoretical framework for war and conquest, it is not intended to be a strict blueprint. Kautilya’s work recognizes the fluidity of warfare and the need for flexible strategies depending on the situation.

Ashoka’s Renunciation of War: A Contrast with Arthashastra

One of the most striking differences between Ashoka’s policies and the teachings of the Arthashastra lies in their respective views on warfare. While Kautilya believed in the necessity of military conquest, Ashoka famously renounced warfare after the Kalinga War, adopting a philosophy of dhamma-vijaya (conquest through righteousness).

Although both the Arthashastra and Ashoka’s edicts speak of dharma/dhamma-vijaya, their interpretations differ significantly. For Kautilya, military conquest was an important aspect of statecraft, but for Ashoka, righteous conquest meant abandoning violence and embracing non-violence and compassion as guiding principles for leadership.

Diplomatic Relations with Hellenistic Kingdoms: Mauryan and Greek Connections

The Mauryan Empire, under Chandragupta Maurya, maintained extensive diplomatic relations with various Hellenistic kingdoms following the death of Alexander the Great. The withdrawal of Alexander’s armies left a political vacuum in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, which Chandragupta quickly filled through military and diplomatic maneuvers. This led to encounters with Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander’s former generals who had established his own empire.

After Chandragupta’s victory over Seleucus, a peace treaty was established, which involved the transfer of territory west of the Indus River to Chandragupta. In exchange, Seleucus received 500 war elephants. This treaty was significant because it marked the first major diplomatic contact between the Mauryan Empire and the Hellenistic world.

Megasthenes, an ambassador sent by Seleucus I Nicator to the court of Chandragupta Maurya at Pataliputra, documented his observations of the Mauryan Empire in his work, the Indica. While the original text of the Indica has been lost, fragments of it survive through citations by later Greek and Roman writers.

Diplomatic Mission of Megasthenes

Megasthenes’ Indica offered one of the earliest European accounts of Indian society, politics, and economics. His position as an ambassador granted him access to Chandragupta’s court, where he witnessed the splendor and grandeur of the Mauryan Empire.

Although Megasthenes had limited access to the inner workings of Indian society, his observations provide valuable insights. His descriptions of Pataliputra, the capital city, reflect its urban planning and architectural marvels. He notes that Pataliputra was 9.33 miles long and 1.75 miles wide, surrounded by a deep moat and a wooden wall crowned with 570 towers and 64 gates.

Greek and Roman References to Megasthenes

Several notable Greek and Roman writers have referenced Megasthenes’ Indica, including:

Diodorus: Described Alexander’s campaign in India and provided a general account of Indian society based on Megasthenes.
Strabo: Known for his geographical writings, Strabo incorporated Megasthenes’ descriptions of India into his work.
Arrian: In his Anabasis and Indica, Arrian utilized Megasthenes’ observations to provide an account of Indian life.
Pliny the Elder: In his book Natural History, Pliny also referenced Megasthenes.
Claudius Aelianus: A Roman scholar, Aelianus cited Megasthenes’ observations in his own works.

These accounts are invaluable for understanding the diplomatic relations between India and the Greek world during the Mauryan period. They reflect how India was perceived from an outsider’s perspective and how Indian society, politics, and culture were relayed to a European audience.

Criticism and Idealized Views

However, these accounts often present an idealized version of India that sometimes lacked accuracy. For instance, Megasthenes noted that the Indian society had no slavery, which was an exaggeration. The Arthashastra, in contrast, provides detailed discussions about slavery and its regulation in the Mauryan Empire.

Additionally, Megasthenes’ descriptions of Indian society as being simple, honest, and free from theft were more reflective of his cultural expectations rather than reality. His reports often highlighted aspects of Indian life that paralleled Greek society, and he exaggerated India’s differences to make his account more compelling to a Greek audience.