Product Code Database
Kautilya's Arthashastra (, ; ) is an Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, politics, economic policy and military strategy. The text is likely the work of several authors over centuries, starting as a compilation of Arthashastras, texts which according to Olivelle date from the 2nd c. BCE to the 1st c. CE. These treatises were compiled and amended in a new treatise, according to McClish and Olivelle in the 1st century CE by either an anonymous author or Kautilya, though earlier and later dates have also been proposed. While often regarded as created by a single author, McClish and Olivelle argue that this compilation, possibly titled Daņdanīti, served as the basis for a major expansion and redaction in the 2nd or 3rd century CE by either Kautilya or an anonymous author, when several books, dialogical comments, and the disharmonious chapter-division were added, and a stronger Brahmanical ideology was brought in. The text thus became a proper arthashastra, and was retitled to Kautilya's Arthashastra.
Two names for the text's compilor or redactor are used in the text, Kauṭalya (Kautilya) and Vishnugupta. Chanakya (375–283 BCE), the counsellor of Chandragupta Maurya, is implied in a later interpolation, reinforced by Gupta Empire and medieval traditions, which explicitly identified Kautilya with Chanakya. This identification started during the Gupta reign (c. 240–c. 579), strengthening the Gupta's ideological presentation as heirs of the Mauryas. Early on, the identification has been questioned by scholarship, and rejected by the main studies on the topic since 1965, because of stylistic differences within the text which point to multiple authorship, and historical elements which are anachronistic for the Mauryan period, but fit in the first centuries of the Common Era. The Arthashastra was influential until the 12th century, when it disappeared. It was rediscovered in 1905 by R. Shamasastry, who published it in 1909.
The first English translation, also by Shamasastry, was published in 1915.The Sanskrit title, Arthashastra, can be translated as 'treatise on "political science"' or "economic science" or simply "statecraft", as the word artha (अर्थ) is polysemous in Sanskrit; the word has a broad scope.
It includes books on the nature of government, law, civil and criminal court systems, ethics, economics, markets and trade, the methods for screening ministers, diplomacy, theories on war, nature of peace, and the duties and obligations of a king.Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, , pages xxv-27 The text incorporates Hindu philosophy,The Arthashastra explores issues of social welfare state, the collective ethics that hold a society together, advising the king that in times and in areas devastated by famine, epidemic and such acts of nature, or by war, he should initiate public works such as creating irrigation waterways and building forts around major strategic holdings and towns and exempt taxes on those affected. The text was influenced by Hindu texts such as the sections on kings, governance and legal procedures included in Manusmriti.
The text was considered lost by colonial era scholars, until a manuscript was discovered in 1905. A copy of the Arthashastra in Sanskrit, written on palm leaves, was presented by a Tamil Brahmin from Thanjavur to the newly opened Mysore Oriental Library headed by Benjamin Lewis Rice. The text was identified by the librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry as the Arthashastra. During 1905–1909, Shamasastry published English translations of the text in installments, in journals Indian Antiquary and Mysore Review.
During 1923–1924, Julius Jolly and Richard Schmidt published a new edition of the text, which was based on a Malayalam script manuscript in the Bavarian State Library. In the 1950s, fragmented sections of a north Indian version of Arthashastra were discovered in form of a Devanagari manuscript in a Jain library in Patan, Gujarat. A new edition based on this manuscript was published by Muni Jina Vijay in 1959. In 1960, R. P. Kangle published a critical edition of the text, based on all the available manuscripts. Numerous translations and interpretations of the text have been published since then.
The text written in 1st millennium BCE Sanskrit, which is coded, dense and capable of many interpretations, especially as English and Sanskrit are very different languages, both grammatically and syntactically. Patrick Olivelle, whose translation was published in 2013 by Oxford University Press, said it was the "most difficult translation project I have ever undertaken." Parts of the text are still opaque after a century of modern scholarship.
Artha (prosperity, wealth, purpose, meaning, economic security) is one of the four aims of human life in Hinduism (Puruṣārtha),Arvind Sharma (1999), The Puruṣārthas: An Axiological Exploration of Hinduism, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 223-256 the others being dharma (laws, duties, rights, virtues, right way of living),Steven Rosen (2006), Essential Hinduism, Praeger, , page 34-45 kama (pleasure, emotions, sex) and moksha (spiritual liberation).John Bowker (2003), The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press, , pages 650-651 Shastra is the Sanskrit word for "rules" or "science".
A notable structure of the treatise is that while all chapters are primarily prose, each transitions into a poetic verse towards its end, as a marker, a style that is found in many ancient Hindu Sanskrit texts where the changing poetic meter or style of writing is used as a syntax code to silently signal that the chapter or section is ending. All 150 chapters of the text also end with a colophon stating the title of the book it belongs in, the topics contained in that book (like an index), the total number of titles in the book and the books in the text. Finally, the Arthashastra text numbers it 180 topics consecutively, and does not restart from one when a new chapter or a new book starts. The topics are unevenly divided over the chapters, with some chapters containing multiple topics, and some topics spread over multiple chapters; a peculiarity which betrays extensive redaction, with the division into chapters as a later addition, as argued by Winternitz, Keith, Trautmann, McClish, and Olivelle.
The division into 15, 150, and 180 of books, chapters and topics respectively was probably not accidental, states Olivelle, because ancient authors of major Hindu texts favor certain numbers, such as 18 Adi Parva in the epic Mahabharata. The largest book is the second, with 1,285 sentences, while the smallest is eleventh, with 56 sentences. The entire book has about 5,300 sentences on politics, governance, welfare, economics, protecting key officials and king, gathering intelligence about hostile states, forming strategic alliances, and conduct of war, exclusive of its table of contents and the last epilogue-style book.
According to McClish, writing in 2009, three "major recent studies" have been done on the composition of the Arthashastra, namely Kangle (1965), Scharfe (1968), and Trautmann (1971), whereafter "little, if any, major work has been done on the composition of the Arthaśāstra in nearly forty years." Olivelle published King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra in 2013, "taking into account the latest advances in Kautilya studies"; a translation which, according to Richard Davis, "clearly supplants all other translations of this work into English, including those of Kangle (1977) and L. N. Rangarajan (1992)." Olivelle adds Dieter Schlingloff's studies (1965, 1967, and 1969) and McClish' 2009 PhD-thesis as "groundbreaking studies" since Kangle's study from 1965; McClish' also published in 2019 The History of the Arthasastra.
While Kangle stated that "it is not possible to point out any substantial parts of the present work as belonging to a later age or as the work of a later hand," early on philologists and text critics have proposed that the Arthashastra consisted of multiple layers of redaction. Stylistic differences within some sections of the surviving manuscripts suggest that it likely includes the work of several authors over the centuries. There is also no doubt, states Olivelle, that "revisions, errors, additions and perhaps even subtractions have occurred" in Arthashastra since its final redaction in 300 CE or earlier. McClish:
To this, Trautmann and Olivelle add the diverse vocabularies used within the Arthashastra.
According to Schlingloff (1967), "The traditional attribution to the minister Kautilya Chanakya is hardly historical, and the compendium probably arose in the first half of the first millennium AD."
Hartmut Scharfe argued in 1968 that "the extant Arthaśāstra is the prose expansion of an earlier verse original," dating it to c. 150 CE.
Trautmann (1971) conducted a statistical analysis of words used in the text, concluding that the Arthashastra is a composite work containing the work of multiple authors: "it being shown that the Arthashastra has not one author but several, it follows that it is to be referred to not one date but to as many dates as it has authors." According to Trautmann, approved by Olivelle, the division into chapters, AS 1.1 with its table of contents, and book fifteen, are the work of "a later, tidying and organizing hand, reworking a text already divided by books and topics, and already possessing an adequate introduction in Arthasastra1.2.
Trautmann "provisionally" proposes 250 CE as the date for the compilation of the Arthashastra, pointing to a number of historical elements which make an earlier dating impossible.
Rangarajan (1987), who re-translated the Arthashastra, states in his Introduction that "some scholars have expressed doubt about the authorship of what we now know as Kautilya's Arthashastra and the date of its composition." Regarding the question of multiple authorship, Rangarajan questions Trautman's analysis, pointing to a "uniformity in style" and approvingly citing Kangle that "there is no convincing reason why this work should not be regarded as the work of Kautilya who helped Chandragupta to come to power in Magadha." Yet, Rangarajan also refers to a dating of 150 CE, stating that " Kautilya’s greatness is in no way diminished if we choose any date between 1850 and 2300 years ago."
Rangarajan notes that the science of artha (material well-being, livelihood, economically productive activity, wealth) was not developed by Kautilya. He drew from older works, which all are lost, and "Kautilya's is the earliest text that has come down to us." One of the possible reason for the disappearance of these earlier literature on Arthashatra could be the Kautilya's comprehensive treatise that made those works redundant, a possibility also mentioned by Olivelle (2013).
According to Olivelle (2013), the initial text had one major revision, and possibly several minor revisions. Olivelle concludes that the oldest layer of text, the "sources of the Kauṭilya", dates from the period 150 BCE–50 CE, consisting of separate treatises from separate authors, confirming Trautmann's analysis. The "Kauṭilya Recension" was created in the period 50–125 CE by a historic person named Kautilya, compiling selections from these texts into a new shastra, which was likely titled Daņdanīti, "literally the administration of punishment but more broadly the exercise of governance." By the time of Manu (mid 2nd century) this recension had gained popularity and authority, as it was this recension which was used by Manu.
This recension was redacted into the "Śāstric Redaction" (i.e., the text as we have it today) between 175 and 300 CE, and was a major redaction by a scholar who had a good knowledge of the Dharmashastras, bringing the Arthashastra "more in line with the mainstream of Brahmanical social ideology" and the superiority of the Brahmin varna. This author added a division into books and chapters, and also added several books, as identified by McClish (2009). He also expanded short, sutra-like statements into extended commentaries in dialogue form. According to Olivelle, "the artificiality of these dialogues has been noted by scholars," and disrupt and disfigure the composition. They may have been added to emphasize Kautilya's authorship, presenting him "as someone standing in a long line of Arthashastric authorities, someone who has surpassed them all when he composed his Arthashastra. According to Olivelle, it was this Shastric redactor who "created an Arthashastra out of a Daņdanīti." With regard to dating, Kalidasa (4th–5th century CE) clearly used this Shastric Redaction.
Olivelle rejects the dating to the Mauryan period, and adds the additional argument, derived from the work of Schlingloff, of the usage of wood for the fortications excavated at Pāṭaliputra, whereas Arthashastra 2.3.8–9 forbids this usage in defensive fortications. Olivelle also refers to the coral-argument for the dating of the source-texts; the import of this coral cannot be dated earlier than the first century BCE.
According to McClish (2019), a treatise he calls the Dandanīti was created in the first century BCE by an unknown author, who drawed "together a number of disparate sources pertaining to statecraft, added some of his own material, and forged them into a comprehensive treatise." Thereafter, possibly in the third century CE, "an individual who called himself “Kautilya” redacted the Dandanīti. Kautilya added a great deal of new material, including the division into chapters and the addition of several books, recast the text in the ideological image of the dharma literature, and renamed it the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya." The date of the third century is based on a comparison with the Manu Dharmashastra (2nd cent. CE), which appears to have used the Dandanati, and not the Arthashastra, which means that the redaction of the Dandanati into the Arthashastra took place after the second century CE. This is corroborated by the first substantial Sanskrit inscription, dated at the middle of the second century CE. Since the Arthashastra prescribes inscriptions in Sanskrit, their absence in the centuries directly after 300 BCE is problematic for the traditional attribution to Chanakya, but fits well with an initial compilation before 150 BCE, and a major redaction after 150 BCE. McClish further notes that "the guidelines provided by the Dandanati would have been insufficient to Chandragupta's imperial project," hence, "t he Dandanati is not an imperial text." As for the lower limit of the dating, McClish also refers to Levy's coral-argument. With regard to the upper limit, McClish too, following Trautman, refers to the disappearance of punch-mark coins in the second century CE, which are mentioned extensively though in the Dandanati, which means that it was compiled before this period.
Both spellings appear in manuscripts, commentaries, and references in other ancient texts; the original spelling of the author's name has been extensively debated by contemporary scholars, but was not an isue for Sanskrit authors. Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa (4th-8th cent. CE), which uses all three names, refers to Chanakya as kutila-mati ("crafty-minded"), where kutila ("crafty," "crooked") is intended, in which case "the name Kautilya would be a kind of nickname which was given to him on account of the well-known crookedness ( kautilyam) of his policy."} However, as Burrow pointed out, such a derivation of a masculine noun from an adjective ( kutila) is grammatically impossible, and Vishakhadatta's usage is simply a pun. The word "Kauṭilya" or "Kauṭalya" appears to be the name of a gotra (lineage), and is used in this sense in the later literature and inscriptions. Nevertheless, Vishakhadatta's pun may have had unintended consequences, as later Sanskrit texts supportive of his work omit the name Kautilya, while those with negative views are keen to use it.
Several Gupta Empire (c. 3rd century CE – 575 CE) and mediaeval texts also identify Kautilya or Vishnagupta with Chanakya. Among the earliest of these sources, Mudrarakshasa (4th-8th cent. CE) is the only one that uses all three names - Kauṭilya, Vishnugupta, and Chanakya - to refer to the same person. The Panchatantra (300 CE) and Vishnugupta (e.g. Kamandaka's Nitisara (3rd-7th cent. CE) use the name Chanakya. Dandin's Dashakumaracharita (7th-8th cent. CE) uses both Chanakya and Vishnugupta ), while Banabhatta's Kadambari (7th. cent. CE) uses Kautilya. The Puranas ( Vishnu Purana (400-900 CE), Vayu Purana (300-500 CE), and Matsya Purana (200-500 CE)) are the only among the ancient texts that use the name "Kautilya," instead of the more common "Chanakya," to describe the Maurya prime minister.
Trautmann points out that none of the earlier sources that refer to Chanakya mention his authorship of the Arthashastra, and Olivelle notes that "the name Canakya, however, is completely absent from the text." This identification seems to be a forgery from the Gupta Empire. The Guptas tried to present themselves symbolically as the legitimate successors of the Mauryas, even using the names "Chandragupta" and "Gupta," a connection also made in the play Mudrarakshasa, composed in the time of the Guptas. The verse seems to be a later interpolation, and Olivelle proposes that it was an attempt to identify the author of the political treatise, which was followed by the Guptas, with the renowned Maurya prime minister.
Olivelle notes that "Given the later association between the AŚ and Cāṇakya, who is regarded as the prime minister of Chandragupta Maurya, there has been a trend from the inception of Arthaśāstra scholarship to date the text to the Maurya period." Several reasons are given for the persistent scholarly attribution to Chanakya, and the a priori dating to Mauryan times. One reason is the reception by Indian nationalists, who saw it "as evidence of a pragmatic and virile tradition of self-rule in India’s past." According to Trautmann, "nationalist aspirations seemed somehow fortified when the existence of strongly centralized empires and native schools of political theory was shown." Furthermore, the identification with Kautilya provided "a link to the most powerful dynasty in South Asian antiquity: the Mauryan Empire," while "given the absolute paucity of sources for this most intriguing era, many scholars seem unable to resist using the Arthaśāstra as a source for the period, despite a decided lack of supporting evidence." According to McClish, "the desire on the part of Indologists to possess just such a source seems to have exerted, in general, a strong influence on conclusions about the compositional history of the text."
Small local state: the Arthashastra is intended for Western Satraps surrounded by other small states, and not for an extensive empire.
Gems and aloe from Ceylon: Hemachandra Raychaudhuri noted in 1919 that gems and aloe from Ceylon are described as pārasamudraka, "from Simhala"; were the text from Mauryan times, it would have used Tamraparni for Ceylon, not Parasamudra.
Chinese silk: S. Lévi noted in 1936 that Arthashastra 2.11.114 mentions Chinese silk, Cinapatta, "originating in China ( Cinabhumi). The Indian name for China is derived from the Qin dynasty, which was established in 221 BCE, post-dating the time of Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. This means that the Arthashastra cannot be attributed to Chanakya.
Coral: S. Lévi also noted, in 1934, that Arthashastra 2.11.42 refers to coral imported from Alexandria. This trade flourished in the early centuries of the Common Era. There are no references in Panini and Patanjali, but plenty in sources from the early Common Era. Therefore, "the mention of Alexandrian coral in the Arthashastra is irreconcilable with the attribution of it to Canakya."
Wine and Hunas: Arthashastra 2.25.24-25 refers to wine, with an etymology derived from the Hunas, which is impossible for a work from the 4th century BCE.
Greek loan-words: the term surungā, "underground passage, tunnel," is a loanword from Hellenistic Greek surinx, which is not used as such before the 2nd century BCE. Likewise, paristoma (2.11.98), "a kind of blanket or carpet," is a loanword from Hellenistic Greek peristròma, not attested before the third century BCE.
Written documents: while the Arthashastra often refers to written documents, and treats the composition of written documents in a specific chapter, yet writing may not have existed in India when the Mauryan empire was founded.
Alchemy and metal-working: there are references to alchemy in the Arthashastra, which is probably a western influence. Also, the level of metal-working described in the Arthashastra does not correspond with the time of Chanakya.
Civil law: Burrow notes that "The chapter on civil law ( vyavahãra) represents a state of development on the same level as that in the Yàjnavalkya-smrti , a work commonly assigned to the fourth century AD."
Sanskrit in royal edicts: Trautmann notes that Book II chapter 10 of the Arthashastra itself refers to the use of Sanskrit in royal edicts, which began in 150 CE, setting an earliest date for the text.
Defensive fortications: according to Megasthenes Pataliputrawas "surrounded by a wooden wall pierced by 64 gates and 570 towers." Olivelle notes that " AŚ (2.3.8–9) forbids the use of wood in defensive fortications of cities because of the obvious danger posed by fire. Yet, while Schlingloff shows that the description of fortifications in the Arthashastra is pretty accurate when compared with archaeological remains, the fortications excavated at Pāṭaliputra, the capital of the Maurya empire, are made of wood," something which would have been impossible if it was the prime minister of Chandragupta had authored the Arthashastra. "The data on the construction of forts in the AŚ (2.3), therefore, must come from a period later than the Maurya."
Roman dīnāra: Trautmann notes that one of the earliest texts referring to the Arthashastra, the Pancatantra, uses the word dīnāra a Roman coin not used in India before the Common Era.
Punched-marked coins: chapter 12 mentions punched-marked coins, which disappeared at the end of the second century, setting the latest possible date for that text.
The author of the text appears to be most familiar with the historical regions of Avanti and Ashmaka, which included parts of present-day Gujarat and Maharashtra. He provides precise annual rainfall figures for these historical regions in the text. Plus, he shows familiarity with sea-trade, which can be explained by the existence of ancient sea ports such as Shurparaka in the Gujarat-Maharashtra region. Lastly, the gotra name Kauṭilya is still found in Maharashtra.
The school of Usanas asserts, states the text, that there is only one necessary knowledge, the science of government because no other science can start or survive without it. The school of Brihaspati asserts, according to Arthashastra, that there are only two fields of knowledge, the science of government and the science of economics ( Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade) because all other sciences are intellectual and mere flowering of the temporal life of man. The school of Manu asserts, states Arthashastra, that there are three fields of knowledge, the Vedas, the science of government and the science of economics ( Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade) because these three support each other, and all other sciences are special branch of the Vedas.
The Arthashastra then posits its own theory that there are four necessary fields of knowledge, the Vedas, the Anvikshaki (science of reasoning), the science of government and the science of economics ( Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade). It is from these four that all other knowledge, wealth and human prosperity is derived. The Kautilya text thereafter asserts that it is the Vedas that discuss what is Dharma (right, moral, ethical) and what is Adharma (wrong, immoral, unethical), it is the Varta that explain what creates wealth and what destroys wealth, it is the science of government that illuminates what is Nyaya (justice, expedient, proper) and Anyaya (unjust, inexpedient, improper), and that it is Anvishaki (philosophy) that is the light of these sciences, as well as the source of all knowledge, the guide to virtues, and the means to all kinds of acts.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 1, Kautilya, pages 3-5 He says of government in general:
The Raja-rishi has self-control and does not fall for the temptations of the senses, he learns continuously and cultivates his thoughts, he avoids false and flattering advisors and instead associates with the true and accomplished elders, he is genuinely promoting the security and welfare of his people, he enriches and empowers his people, he lives a simple life and avoids harmful people or activities, he keeps away from another's wife nor craves for other people's property. The greatest enemies of a king are not others, but are these six: lust, anger, greed, conceit, arrogance and foolhardiness. A just king gains the loyalty of his people not because he is king, but because he is just.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 1, Kautilya, pages 5-6
Topic 2 of the Arthashastra, or chapter 5 of Book 1, is dedicated to the continuous training and development of the king, where the text advises that he maintain a counsel of elders, from each field of various sciences, whose accomplishments he knows and respects. Topic 4 of the text describes the process of selecting the ministers and key officials, which it states must be based on king's personal knowledge of their honesty and capacity. Kautilya first lists various different opinions among extant scholars on how key government officials should be selected, with Bharadvaja suggesting honesty and knowledge be the screen for selection, Kaunapadanta suggesting that heredity be favored, Visalaksha suggesting that king should hire those whose weaknesses he can exploit, Parasara cautioning against hiring vulnerable people because they will try to find king's vulnerability to exploit him instead, and yet another who insists that experience and not theoretical qualification be primary selection criterion.
Kautilya, after describing the conflicting views on how to select officials, asserts that a king should select his Amatyah (ministers and high officials) based on the capacity to perform that they have shown in their past work, the character and their values that is accordance with the role. The Amatyah, states Arthashastra, must be those with following Amatya-sampat: well trained, with foresight, with strong memory, bold, well spoken, enthusiastic, excellence in their field of expertise, learned in theoretical and practical knowledge, pure of character, of good health, kind and philanthropic, free from procrastination, free from ficklemindedness, free from hate, free from enmity, free from anger, and dedicated to dharma.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 1, Kautilya, pages 7-8 Those who lack one or a few of these characteristics must be considered for middle or lower positions in the administration, working under the supervision of more senior officials. The text describes tests to screen for the various Amatya-sampat.
The Arthashastra, in Topic 6, describes checks and continuous measurement, in secret, of the integrity and lack of integrity of all ministers and high officials in the kingdom. Those officials who lack integrity must be arrested. Those who are unrighteous, should not work in civil and criminal courts. Those who lack integrity in financial matters or fall for the lure of money must not be in revenue collection or treasury, states the text, and those who lack integrity in sexual relationships must not be appointed to Vihara services (pleasure grounds). The highest level ministers must have been tested and have successfully demonstrated integrity in all situations and all types of allurements.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 1, Kautilya, pages 5-7
Chapter 9 of Book 1 suggests that the king maintain a council and a Purohit (chaplain, spiritual guide) for his personal counsel. The Purohit, claims the text, must be one who is well educated in the Vedas and its six Angas.
Anywhere, states Arthashastra in verse 7.5.22, where people are fined or punished or harassed when they ought not to be harassed, where those that should be punished are not punished, where those people are apprehended when they ought not be, where those who are not apprehended when they ought to, the king and his officials cause distress and disaffection. When officials engage in thievery, instead of providing protection against robbers, the people are impoverished, they lose respect and become disaffected.
A state, asserts Arthashastra text in verses 7.5.24 - 7.5.25, where courageous activity is denigrated, quality of accomplishments are disparaged, pioneers are harmed, honorable men are dishonored, where deserving people are not rewarded but instead favoritism and falsehood is, that is where people lack motivation, are distressed, become upset and disloyal.
In verse 7.5.33, the ancient text remarks that general impoverishment relating to food and survival money destroys everything, while other types of impoverishment can be addressed with grants of grain and money.
The ancient text stipulates that the courts have a panel of three pradeshtri (magistrates) for handling criminal cases, and this panel is different, separate and independent of the panel of judges of civil court system it specifies for a Hindu kingdom. The text lays out that just punishment is one that is in proportion to the crime in many sections starting with chapter 4 of Book 1,Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, , page xx and repeatedly uses this principle in specifying punishments, for example in Topic 79, that is chapter 2 of Book 4.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 4, Kautilya, pages 110-111 Economic crimes such as conspiracy by a group of traders or artisans is to be, states the Arthashastra, punished with much larger and punitive collective fine than those individually, as conspiracy causes systematic damage to the well-being of the people.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 3 and 4, Kautilya, pages 79-126
In chapter 3.4, the text gives the right to a woman that she may remarry anyone if she wants to, if she has been abandoned by the man she was betrothed to, if she does not hear back from him for three menstrual periods, or if she does hear back and has waited for seven menses.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 3, Kautilya, pages 84-85
The chapter 2 of Book 3 of Arthashastra legally recognizes eight types of marriage. The bride is given the maximum property inheritance rights when the parents select the groom and the girl consents to the selection (Brahma marriage), and minimal if bride and groom marry secretly as lovers (Gandharva marriage) without the approval of her father and her mother.Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Book 3, Kautilya, pages 81-82 However, in cases of Gandharva marriage (love), she is given more rights than she has in Brahma marriage (arranged), if the husband uses the property she owns or has created, with husband required to repay her with interest when she demands.
In topic 35, the text recommends that the "Superintendent of Forest Produce" appointed by the state for each forest zone be responsible for maintaining the health of the forest, protecting forests to assist wildlife such as elephants ( hastivana), but also producing forest products to satisfy economic needs, products such as Teak, Palmyra, Mimosa, Sissu, Kauki, Sirisha, Catechu, Latifolia, Arjuna, Tilaka, Tinisa, Sal, Robesta, Pinus, Somavalka, Dhava, Birch, bamboo, hemp, Balbaja (used for ropes), Munja, fodder, firewood, bulbous roots and fruits for medicine, flowers. The Arthashastra also reveals that the Mauryas designated specific forests to protect supplies of timber, as well as lions and tigers, for skins.
The roles and guises recommended for Vyanjana (appearance) agents by the Arthashastra include ascetics, forest hermits, mendicants, cooks, merchants, doctors, astrologers, householders, entertainers, dancers, female agents and others. It suggests that members from these professions should be sought to serve for the secret service. A prudent state, states the text, must expect that its enemies seek information and are spying inside its territory and spreading propaganda, and therefore it must train and reward double agents to gain identity about such hostile intelligence operations.
The goals of the secret service, in Arthashastra, was to test the integrity of government officials, spy on cartels and population for conspiracy, to monitor hostile kingdoms suspected of preparing for war or in war against the state, to check spying and propaganda wars by hostile states, to destabilize enemy states, to get rid of troublesome powerful people who could not be challenged openly.Roger Boesche (2003), Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, The Journal of Military History, Volume 67, Number 1, pages 9-37 The spy operations and its targets, states verse 5.2.69 of Arthashastra, should be pursued "with respect to traitors and unrighteous people, not with respect to others".
Kautilya, in the Arthashastra, suggests that the state must always be adequately fortified, its armed forces prepared and resourced to defend itself against acts of war. Kautilya favors peace over war, because he asserts that in most situations, peace is more conducive to creation of wealth, prosperity and security of the people. Arthashastra defines the value of peace and the term peace, states Brekke, as "effort to achieve the results of work undertaken is industry, and absence of disturbance to the enjoyment of the results achieved from work is peace".Torkel Brekke (2009), The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, , page 128
All means to win a war are appropriate in the Arthashastra, including assassination of enemy leaders, sowing discord in its leadership, engagement of covert men and women in the pursuit of military objectives and as weapons of war, deployment of accepted superstitions and propaganda to bolster one's own troops or to demoralize enemy soldiers, as well as open hostilities by deploying kingdom's armed forces. After success in a war by the victorious just and noble state, the text argues for humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects.
The Arthashastra theories are similar with some and in contrast to other alternative theories on war and peace in the ancient Indian tradition. For example, states Brekke, the legends in Hindu epics preach heroism qua heroism which is in contrast to Kautilya suggestion of prudence and never forgetting the four Hindu goals of human life, while Kamandaki's Nitisara, which is similar to Kautilya's Arthashastra, is among other Hindu classics on statecraft and foreign policy that suggest prudence, engagement and diplomacy, peace is preferable and must be sought, and yet prepared to excel and win war if one is forced to.Torkel Brekke (2009), The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, , pages 121-138
Arthashastra stipulates restraint on taxes imposed, fairness, the amounts and how tax increases should be implemented. Further, the text suggests that the tax should be "convenient to pay, easy to calculate, inexpensive to administer, equitable and non-distortive, and not inhibit growth.Charles Waldauer et al. (1996), Kautilya's Arthashastra: A Neglected Precursor to Classical Economics, Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pages 101-108 Fair taxes build popular support for the king, states the text, and some manufacturers and artisans, such as those of textiles, were subject to a flat tax. The Arthashastra states that taxes should only be collected from ripened economic activity, and should not be collected from early, unripe stages of economic activity. Historian of economic thought Joseph Spengler notes:
Agriculture on privately owned land was taxed at the rate of 16.67%, but the tax was exempted in cases of famine, epidemic, and settlement into new pastures previously uncultivated and if damaged during a war. New public projects such as irrigation and water works were exempt from taxes for five years, and major renovations to ruined or abandoned water works were granted tax exemption for four years.K Thanawala (2014), Ancient Economic Thought (Editor: Betsy Price), Routledge, , page 52 Temple and lands were exempt from taxes, fines or penalties. Trade into and outside the kingdom's borders was subject to toll fees or duties. Taxes varied between 10% and 25% on industrialists and businessmen, and it could be paid in kind (produce), through labor, or in cash.
Chanakya's patron Chandragupta Maurya consolidated an empire which was inherited by his son Bindusara and then his grandson Ashoka.
More recent scholarship has disagreed with the characterization of Arthashastra as "Machiavellianism".S Set (2015), Ancient Wisdom for the Modern World: Revisiting Kautilya and his Arthashastra in the Third Millennium, Strategic Analysis, Volume 39, Issue 6, pages 710-714 Kautilya asserts in Arthashastra that, "the ultimate source of the prosperity of the kingdom is its security and prosperity of its people", a view never mentioned in Machiavelli's text. The text advocates land reform, where land is taken from landowners and farmers who own land but do not grow anything for a long time, and given to poorer farmers who want to grow crops but do not own any land.
Arthashastra declares, in numerous occasions, the need for empowering the weak and poor in one's kingdom, a sentiment that is not found in Machiavelli. "The king shall also provide subsistence to helpless women when they are carrying and also to the children they give birth to". Elsewhere, the text values not just powerless human life, but even animal life and suggests in Book 2 that horses and elephants be given food, when they become incapacitated from old age, disease or after war.
Scholars disagree on how to interpret the document. Kumud Mookerji states that the text may be a picture of actual conditions in Kautilya's times. However, Bhargava states that given Kautilya was the prime minister, one must expect that he implemented the ideas in the book.
The text dedicates Book 3 and 4 to economic laws and a court system to oversee and resolve economic, contracts and market-related disputes.Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, , pages 134-138 The text also provides a system of appeal in which three dharmastha (judges) consider contractual disputes between two parties, and considers profiteering and false claims to dupe customers a crime. The text, states Trautmann, thus anticipates market exchange and provides a framework for its functioning.
The text, states Sihag, is a treatise on how a state should pursue economic development and it emphasized "proper measurement of economic performance", and "the role of ethics, considering ethical values as the glue which binds society and promotes economic development".BS Sihag (2004), Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design and the role of ethics in ancient India, The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol 31, Number 2, pages 125-148
|
|
