Brooks.2006 07.KautilyasMaxims

Kautilya's Maxims | Contents
http://web.archive.org/web/20070807172054/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/front/contents.html[12/27/2010 10:10:09 PM]

Kautilya's Maxims
Contents
The 82 probably genuine maxims of Kautilya are here presented in what we believe to be their original
thematic order, for consecutive reading. They may be accessed individually from the Overview (which
serves as the detailed Contents page for the maxims), or by their Arthashstra (ArS) number from the
Inventory.
Introductory
Preface
Argument for a Kautilya core in the Arthashstra
Arrangement of Material in the Arthashstra
Overview of the Kautilya Maxims in the Arthashstra
The Maxims
Kautilya's Maxims for Consecutive Reading
Inventory of Kautilya Quotations in Arthashstra
Order of Citation of Authorities in Arthashstra
Comments and Appendices
Epitome of Kautilya in the Early Indian Statecraft Tradition
Chinese Statecraft Passages Mentioned in the Commentary
Works Cited

Kautilya' s Maxims is Copyright 2001- by E Bruce and A Taeko Brooks
19 Feb 2006 / Contact The Project / Exit to Kautilya Page

Kautilya's Maxims | Preface
http://web.archive.org/web/20070103090433/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/front/preface.html[12/27/2010 10:06:52 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
Preface
Kautilya is renowned as the architect of the Indian Maurya dynasty (established in c0317), and at the
same time, is often condemned as the author of the statecraft text Arthashstra (ArS). The "Kautilya"
maxims, which are cited in the third person in ArS (there is thus no question of his authorship of ArS)
do suggest a consistent point of view, implying that they might reflect a single person, and not
implausibly a person of Chandragupta's time. Here are some points in favor of that view:
Most of the maxims are not primary pronouncements. They are reactions to earlier opinions in
areas such as law and diplomacy. They also address questions of palace intrigue and dynastic
succession. They do not deal with custom or piety as such. The Kautilya of the maxims thus
appears to be a synthesist rather than a specialist, but a synthesist with a special interest in
maintaining rulership and giving it effect in the real world. As far as it goes, that mental horizon
would not be inappropriate for the general advisor of a dynastic aspirant.
The maxims imply a court of only modest size and complexity. This agrees well with the
observations of Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to the court of the first Maurya ruler,
Chandragupta.
By contrast, the portions of the ArS which do not contain Kautilya maxims imply a more
developed bureaucracy, and thus a later period. They comment on areas such as battle tactics,
with which the Kautilya maxims do not deal. They go far beyond the situation implied by the
Kautilya maxims, and that described by Megasthenes. Instead, they suggest the more advanced
situation implied by the Ashokan inscriptions, or by other evidences for the late Maurya state.
In particular, the many Pali-isms and such other presumptively late features as the mention of
Cina [China] do not oc c ur in the Kautilya maxims. They occur only in the surrounding text, or
in chapters which contain no Kautilya maxims at all.
This suggests to us that the maxims are plausible as representing the thought of Kautilya, and might
have been written down not long after his death in c0300. The rest of the book, by contrast, seems to
reflect the later Maurya period. We believe these parts of the book were added subsequently.
The ArS maxims seem to reflect a consistent and early body of Indian statecraft thought, schematically
expressed, but in their content probably referring to the end of the 04th century. From those maxims,
historians will get a glimpse of India at a moment of transition, and students of modern administration
will often find their science anticipated. To both, and to readers in general, they offer a more focused
vignette of Kautilya and his predecessors than does the larger, but later, remainder of the Arthashstra.
We here present those maxims in a slight adjustment of their present ArS order, to reflect what we
believe was the arrangement of their first compiler. The philological argument for our order, and for our
conclusion that the maxims themselves reflect Kautilya, is given at various points in the commentary,
and is summarized on the Argument page. Our commentary to each maxim takes up points of historical
interest as well as relevant philological details. We have sometimes added references to analogous
passages in the Chinese statecraft texts, mostly from the late 04th and early 03rd centuries. India and
China were very different societies in this period, but they were also going through somewhat analogous
processes. Not much detailed information is available on either side, but we offer these parallel extracts
as perhaps suggestive.
On the philological side, our debt to the annotated translations of Shamasastry (1957) and especially
Kangle (1972), on which we have largely relied in place of the Sanskrit original and much of its
associated scholarship, is obviously profound. For helpful advice and correction, we are further grateful
to Michael Witzel and Patrick Olivelle, and to other members of the collaborative Sindhic Joint Seminar
from the year 2000 onward. Further suggestions from readers of this on-line version will be much
appreciated, as we continue to study the text and to sharpen our own responses to it.
During his years in Berlin, Fu Sz-nyen briefly studied Sanskrit. He never became fluent in Sanskrit, but
his sense of the importance of Indian history for Chinese history is one we share. We think that the
Kautilya fragments, with their scholarly interest and political importance, would have pleased Fu Sz-
nyen, whose own career combined the scholarly and the political. We have dedicated these pages to
Kautilya's Maxims | Preface
http://web.archive.org/web/20070103090433/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/front/preface.html[12/27/2010 10:06:52 PM]
him.
E Bruce and A Taeko Brooks
7 March 2001

Kautilya's Maxims is Copyright 2001- by E Bruce and A Taeko Brooks

Kautilya's Maxims | Overview of Kautilya Sayings in ArS
http://web.archive.org/web/20070806061514/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/front/overview.html[12/27/2010 10:09:29 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
Overview of Kautilya Sayings in ArS
Kautilya sayings oc c ur in ten of the fifteen books of the Arthashstra, but they c l ust er in only five of
them: ArS 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9. It is those five topics - statecraft, law, diplomacy, strategy, and war - that
seem to have defined the range of Kautilya's statecraft thought. In this reconstruction, we have
rearranged the Kautilya sayings to put them wholly under those rubrics. On the Evolution page we show
how that beginning was thematically expanded in the later layers of the Arthashstra, and how some
Kautilya maxims were redistributed to legitimize that expansion at key points.
Clicking on a reference will take you to that saying. See also the parallel list of Chinese Statecraft
passages cited in the notes.
1. The Statesman (ArS 1-2)
The Place of Our Science: 01, The Sage King: 02
Civil Order: 03, 04
The Heir Apparent: 05, 06
Succession and Usurpation: 07
Choosing Ministers: 08, 09
Consulting Ministers: 10, 11
Dishonesty of Ministers: 12, 13
2. The Judge (ArS 3)
Family Law
Marriage: [not represented]
Divorce Through Abandonment: 14, 15
Inheritance: 16, 17
Addendum: 16a "Usanas"
Civil Law
Witnesses: 18
Contracts for Labor: 19
Robbery: 20, 21
Addendum: 20a "Teachers"
Assault: 22, 23
Gambling: 24
3. The Diplomat (ArS 7)
Policy Options: 25
[to be completed]

Kautilya's Maxims | Argument
http://web.archive.org/web/20070903144639/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/argument/index.html[12/27/2010 10:12:21 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
Argument for the Reconstruction
This is a consecutive overview of the considerations which lead us to conclude that the Kautilya maxims
within Arthashstra (ArS) may be earlier than the admittedly late date of most of that text, and, more
specifically, may come from a source close to the historical Kautilya. In effect, we argue for a several-
layered ArS, in which the Kautilya maxims occur only in the earliest layer. The argument is long. It
proceeds backwards, from the latest to the earliest material. Some points are further investigated on
associated pages, which are linked below as they occur in the argument. Here are the subdivisions of
the main argument:
Introduction
Latest Additions
Framing Structures
Verse Portions
Late Material
Middle Material
Early Material
The Kautilya Core
The Authority Citations
The Kautilya School
Conclusion
Introduction
We should note at the outset that the ArS is divided into 15 "books," each in one or more chapters, and
those in turn into 180 sections (150 sections, if continuations are counted as one). The chief fact on
which the present argument is based is that the Kautilya maxims do not occur evenly distributed within
ArS, but are confined to certain books and chapters. It can then be verified that the linguistic features
which have often been pointed out as signs of late date for the ArS as a whole are clustered in the ArS
books and chapters which do not contain Kautilya maxims. The implication is that the Kautilya maxims
comprise a linguistically early stratum within ArS, and that the rest of ArS represents an expansion
(perhaps in several installments) beyond that original stratum.
It will be easiest to follow the process in reverse, starting with certain elements which have been widely
recognized as either late in content or extraneous in form.
Latest Additions
Kautilya. The next to last line of the text reads "Seeing the manifold errors of the writers of
commentaries on scientific treatises, Vishnugupta himself composed the sutra and the bhasya."
Kautilya's personal name Vishnugupta is mentioned nowhere else in the work; indeed, the supposed
author is called Kautilya in the Book 15 ending formula directly preceding this line, and in the whole-text
ending formula directly following that. Kangle 2/516 calls the Vishnugupta attribution "clearly a later
addition." It would seem to have been added after the work was otherwise formally complete. Its intent
may have been to temper the then-negative implications of the name or epithet Kautilya (etymologically
"The Devious One"), for a later age which held deviousness in less esteem. The variant name
Kautalya, preferred by some scholars, but attested only later, may be a similar attempt by an interested
posterity to mitigate a previous reputation,. Kangle (3/109-113) argues that the Kautilya form is earlier
attested, in the texts, in the commentaries, and in the echoes in other works. We find that argument
entirely sufficient.
Framing Structures
At the outer edges of the text are two framing elements. The first section of Book 1, exceptionally, is
unnumbered. It summarizes the 180 following sections of ArS. It can only have been written when the
work had reached that total size, and when its sections had been numbered from 1 to 180. The framing
statement respects this number 180 by not renumbering itself as section 1.
The last of those 180 sections (a single section, which makes up all of Book 15) is the other framing
item. It lists the rhetorical devices used in the preceding 179 sections. This too is outside the work as
such, though within its numbering system.
These two lists could have been added at any time after the completion of the ArS proper. The
unnumbered introductory overview is obviously the later of the two, and section 180 itself need be only
slightly earlier. In what follows, we will ignore both, and consider that ArS, for our purposes, consists of
14 books divided into a total of 179 sections.
Verse Portions
ArS is largely in prose, but includes about 380 slokas or verse passages (Kangle 2/5 n18). These are
not randomly placed. They occur at the end of every book and every chapter within each book; some
also interrupt the prose sections. The chapter-final verses are sometimes summary in character, but
sometimes they simply continue the preceding exposition. The interruptive verses typically elaborate the
preceding lines. Some of them begin with transition words like "Therefore" (1/15:17). Literarily, they
cannot stand without the prose text which they interrupt or conclude, whereas the prose text continues
to make sense if these non-final verses are removed. The verses are thus clearly later than the prose
text. Olivelle Dharma xxv notes that slokas began to replace the earlier sutra style in the administrative
writings "around the beginning of the common era." The presumption is that, to update ArS stylistically,
the ends of all its chapters were at some point rewritten as slokas, and some explanatory slokas were
also added within the text. This might have happened as early as c100. In visualizing the text as it
would have appeared at an earlier period, we should then consider the interruptive verses as not being
present, and regard the chapter-final verses as having been originally written in prose. On this
assumption, the content of the chapter-final slokas remains part of the text, whereas the content of the
interruptive slokas is eliminated from further consideration. This affects our inventory of presumptively
original Kautilya maxims.
Late Material
As may be seen in the Inventory, the Kautilya maxims are not distributed evenly over the fifteen books
(or as we have concluded above, actually fourteen books), as we would expect them to be if they were
a mere authenticating gesture used by the author of a late work to connect it with a respected earlier
name. In that case, we would expect the sayings to be as well distributed as the chapter-final attribution
statements mentioned above. Instead, the maxims cluster. Most of them occur in only five books (ArS 1,
3, 7, 8, 9). The few which occur elsewhere can easily be related to the themes of those five groups. For
example, 5/6:23 and 5/6:32, on the subject of the transition to the heir apparent, might be thought to
belong thematically with the comments on preparing the heir apparent in 1/17:22 and 1/17:30. Book 5
contains no ot her Kautilya maxims than these two. In fact, if we mentally relocate these two maxims to
Book 1, thus placing them with the other ArS maxims on the same subject, Books 4-6 include no
Kautilya citations at all. Further, the nine books with few or no Kautilya maxims (ArS 2, 4-6, and 10-14,
and of course 15) do not cite any other authorities either (a reference to the Puranas in 3:7 is part of a
passage which has other difficulties as well; Kangle 2/215 calls it "a late marginal comment that has got
into the text"). They read like contemporary descriptions, not like authority statements. This is a different
strategy altogether.
There is a further point. In general, the topics of the ten ArS books which contain few or no Kautilya
citations imply a later stage of political evolution than the other five. Among other things, they contain
minute specifications for the operation of a large state bureaucracy (ArS 2), they describe elaborate
police mechanisms (ArS 4), they expound the highly ramified system of secret agents for which the ArS
is notorious among modern readers (ArS 5), and they expound the mandala or "circle of kings" theory
(ArS 6), another favorite of later readers, but on its face a suspiciously schematic view of internal
relations in a multi-state system. These books, then, may well be a later stratum than the books which
include groups of Kautilya citations.
Additionally, Hartmut Scharfe's vocabulary arguments for a c0150 date for the entire ArS turn out to
apply not to the whole work, but essentially to material in this apparently later stratum. Scharfe's c0150
date may be accepted as the earliest at which these late ArS extensions could have been compiled.
Whether they were added at one time or over an extended period does not affect the Kautilya question,
and can be left to be clarified by future research. We do confidently identify them as late material. We
put them aside, and will not discuss them further.
Middle Material
Even in the ArS books where the Kautilya maxims cluster, they cluster unevenly within those books. In
ArS 8, for instance, which as a whole abounds with Kautilya maxims, all such maxims are found in the
first four chapters, with none in the fifth. ArS 8 in general deals with a series of problems and
emergencies encountered by the state. Only its fifth and final chapter discusses military problems. The
Kautilya maxims themselves consider political and diplomatic matters, but not specifically military ones.
In the late Book 10, a more extended consideration of military matters, it is conspicuous that two ancient
authorities are cited (in 10:6) on the makeup of the basic battle group, but without the usual final citation
from Kautilya. It then seems likely that the last chapter in ArS 8 and other such chapters in the
generally early books have been added to extend the range of those books into areas beyond the
specific "Kautilya" prototype. Since the addition of chapters to existing books is a different and less
drastic structural device than the creation of whole new books, the chapters without citations (within
books which do contain citations) may be assumed to define a middle layer. That layer would consist of
the last chapter of Book 8 and similar material: the first thematic ventures beyond the limits of the early
ArS, and of Kautilya himself. The addition of whole books on the same new topics would be a second
and later strategy, and the military Book 10 would belong to that later layer.
Early Material
Removing from consideration, as irrelevant to our present purpose, both the middle and later material as
defined above, it follows that the early layer of ArS must then comprise approximately the chapters
containing significant numbers of Kautilya citations. But even these chapters do not wholly consist of
those citations; they normally continue with statements further developing the position attributed
to Kautilya, or else they precede the Kautilya citations by other material on the same general topic.
These more developed statements are presumably the original voice of the Arthashstra compiler, as
distinct from the quoted voice of Kautilya. It would then be a relevant and interesting task to define
exactly how far the original Arthashstra theorist (apart from the later writer who expanded the ArS far
beyond the five chapters which were probably its original compass) had progressed beyond the position
defined by the Kautilya citations.
Law. This early but non-Kautilyan material should thus probably be thought of as added to the core of
Kautilya sayings on a given subject. In some chapters, that expansion process can be partly tracked,
and a relative dating can be suggested. See for example the separate Law page, which discusses in
some detail the expansion process as it can be seen exemplified in the early part of ArS 3.
The Kautilya Core
We come at last to the Kautilya citations themselves. These are almost always given in response to one
or more opinions by other and presumably earlier authorities. They often supply a corrective or
revisionist "last word" to them. Some of the non-Kautilya names cited are identified with known schools
of interpretation, though there are difficulties in matching their content to that of the works which
supposedly preserve the traditions of some of those schools. Is it possible that the Early Arthashstra
author has quoted the opinions of those schools in order to refute them by his own position, which he
speciously presents under the respected name of Kautilya? In that case, the motive for the ArS would
be controversialist, and its position, and that of the cited "Kautilya" which validates it, might relate to a
later century, and thus be irrelevant to Kautilya in the late 04c.
Manu. The easiest test of this possibility is with the ArS citations of "Followers of Manu." There was a
later school of legal interpretation identified with Manu; its text is the Laws of Manu (Manu Smrti). This
is a wholly versified text (in sloka rather than sutra form), and thus, by Olivelle's canon, cannot be from
the BC centuries. Do the Manu citations in ArS define a position which is recognizably that of the
Manu Smrti? There are points of similarity, and thus possible continuity, but on the whole they do not
appear to define the same position. Kangle notes (2/6, 3/80) that the "Manu" citations in ArS largely
diverge from the views of the Manu Smrti. The same seems to be generally true of other ArS quotes
that can be compared with later school doctrines associated with those names. Then the evident
controversial intent of the earliest ArS cannot as a whole be referred to the substantially later period
from which the Manu Smrti and other extant representatives of those schools must (for other reasons)
be dated. It is more plausible to conclude that the Kautilya quotes are arguing with predecessors of the
known schools, and of course also with some other viewpoints of that time which happen not to have
later successors.
We conclude that the later schools identified with some of the Kautilya opponents had diverged, at
some points substantially, from the ideas of their founders, and that the early ArS is reflecting them at
an earlier stage in their development. It remains also possible that some of these schools were not
really in lineal descent from their claimed founder, but were borrowing an early name to authenticate
later doctrines. Into these complications we have not ventured. We have left them for future research by
those properly equipped.
The Authority Citations
What, then, is the nature of the authority citations as a whole? We may dismiss the possibility that they
are themselves a text, accumulated in a line leading from the earliest cited authority to Kautilya (the
latest), and representing doctrinal evolution in that series of thinkers within one tradition which was
simply codified or continued by the earliest ArS writer. For one thing, there is no one succession of such
thinkers in the ArS citations (Bharadvaja is the earliest name in one sequence, and the followers of
Manu stand at the head of another), and many Kautilya positions are given in opposition to a more
vaguely attributed opinion of "the teachers." Thus, several different traditions, some of them not very well
defined except as traditional wisdom, would seem to be represented. For another, some of those
citations are more than a little implausible on their face, and may have been distorted or even
concocted for the purposes of the ArS core compiler. The non-Kautilya positions as a whole have the
appearance of being assembled for Kautilya to refute, or, more rarely, to homogenize or approve.
Unanswered Sayings. But we cannot dismiss all of them as invented, since some non-Kautilya
maxims are quoted without a concluding Kautilya wrap-up, apparently for their own value as early
opinions. In the absence of a Kautilya opinion, we must assume that they were themselves authoritative
for the Early ArS compiler. Two such maxims are the statements of Usanas (10/6:1) and Brhaspati
(10/6:2) on the standard battle array of the chariot army of the time. These disagree with each other,
but they are not followed by a capping or harmonizing comment from Kautilya. Kautilya in general has
nothing to say about battle (as distinct from war), and ArS 10, which is concerned with battle, apparently
respects this fact by citing other authorities instead. Here, at least, the other authorities are not straw
men set up for Kautilya to improve on.
Dialogue. A third point is that the successive authority positions, as expressed in ArS, convey an
effect of dialogue among the authorities, which is unlikely if those positions were quoted from the
separately preserved maxims of their respective schools. It is more likely that they were rephrased by
whoever assembled them. Here again, but on different grounds, we reach the suspicion that the group
of citations did not exist as a text prior to its use by the early ArS. It then seems likely that the early ArS
compiler himself did the assembling and rephrasing of these pre-Kautilya maxims, and structured them
so as to maximize the force of the Kautilya maxims themselves.
The Kautilya School
There seems to be no ground in the ArS material, or in traditions reported elsewhere, to assume that
Kautilya at any point wrote down his own maxims, or founded his own school of law or statecraft. Even
in the ArS 15 "Vishnugupta" addendum, he is remembered as a doer rather than a teacher. At the
same time, there is no doubt that he is the focal point of the ArS assemblage of citations, and that the
core ArS text continues past Kautilya's contribution in what seems to be the same spirit. The simplest
conjecture that will cover this situation is that the ArS core author was a political theorist of the
early Maurya period, acquainted with the principles of Kautilya, and concerned to formulate them in text
form, and that he may have done so shortly after the death of Kautilya, in order to fill the gap left by
the fact that Kautilya did not write his own text, or found his own school. He set Kautilya's positions in
the context of previous opinions, gathered from the whole range then available, and connected and
expounded them. The core ArS, on this understanding, is not exactly a text of the Kautilya school, there
being no Kautilya school in the strict sense, but a functional substitute for it: a systematic and
eponymous attempt to preserve Kautilya's statecraft as subsuming and replacing earlier contributions to
that science.
If the core ArS, though not by Kautilya, is a Kautilyan text, as this suggestion supposes, one detail of
the final ArS becomes perhaps more intelligible. This is the "mandala" theory developed in ArS 6 (for a
diagram, see Spellman 157), of the pattern of enmities and allegiances among the successively more
distant kingdoms surrounding the one with which the text is concerned. Such a multi-state system
would have been eliminated by the Maurya unification, and the mandala theory would thus have been
obsolete, or at any rate less compelling, for any writer after Kautilya (Spellman, noting this difficulty,
dates the mandala theory to c0500). That a late book of the ArS develops the diplomacy of Kautilya in
that direction shows, in our opinion, that Kautilya's own world continued to be "classical" for the author
of that book, just as the Han-dynasty (02c) chapters of the Gwandz still speak in terms of the multi-state
system which was the context of that work's early layers, but which the Chin unification of 0221 had
eliminated as a political fact. The late ArS is then not exclusively based on the world of its own time; it
is also concerned to elaborate in theory the world still embodied in the perceptions of its eponymous
figure, Kautilya. Keeping Kautilya's heritage alive will then have ranked with keeping it current, as a
motive for extending the text. This suggests that the Arthashstra, over the period during which it grew
as a text, regarded itself as the definitive repository of Kautilyan statecraft.
Conclusion
Pending further results from study of the text and archaeological evidence, we feel that it is plausible on
present evidence to conclude that the Kautilya maxims of the ArS represent him and his predecessors,
not indeed in their own words, but in a formulation that may be close to them in substance.
Contact The Project / Exit to Kautilya Page

Arthashastra Overview
http://web.archive.org/web/20070818050104/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/front/arrangement.html[12/27/2010 10:15:28 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
Arangement of ArS Material
Here is the layout of material in the Arthashstra, by Book and Chapter. Chapters containing Kautilya
sayings are highlighted in r ed .

Book 1
Statecraft
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Book 2
Management
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Book 3
Law
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Book 4
Criminals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Book 5
Secret Procedure
1 2 3 4 5 6*
Book 6
Mandala Theory
1 2
Book 7
Foreign Policy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17* /17 18
Book 8
Disasters
1 2 3 4 5
Book 9
War Preparations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Book 10
War
1 2 3 4 5 6
Book 11
Oligarchies
1
Book 12
The Weaker King
1 2 3 4 5
Book 13
Siege Warfare
1 2 3 4* /4 5
Book 14
Espionage
1 2 3 4
Book 15
Summary
1

Kautilya's Maxims | Arthashastra Kautilya Inventory
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610045657/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/inventory/index.html[12/27/2010 10:17:43 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
ArS Kautilya Inventory
This is an inventory of all statements quoted in the Arthashstra (ArS) as from Kautilya or any other
authority. Kautilya is nearly always quoted as the last in a series, giving him, in effect, the final word in
the discussion. In a very few cases, he or another authority is quoted alone. The pattern of occurrence
of these names, when they appear in a series of quotations, is summarized on a separate overview
page.
In this index, we have ignored the name "Kautilya" in the authorship formulas which conclude each
chapter and each book, and the ArS text as a whole. Otherwise, this list is a complete index to the word
"Kautilya" in the Arthashastra. Note that the numbering in this reference list (given in the first column) is
not identical with that of our final version of the Kautilya Maxims (given in the third column).
Quotations #1-26 (ArS 1-6)
Quotations #27-50 (ArS 7)
Quotations #51-78 (ArS 8)
Quotations #79-87 (ArS 9-14)
Order of Citation of Authorities in ArS

Contact The Project / Exit to Kautilya Page

Kautilya's Maxims | ArS Kautilya Inventory #1
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610165219/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/inventory/inv1.html[12/27/2010 10:20:59 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
ArS Kautilya Inventory 1
These are the citations of Kautilya and others in ArS 1-6, numbered as they occur in the present ArS.
Note that our final selection of Kautilya maxims (given in the "Tr" column) has a different numbering,
since we reject one "Kautilya" saying, and do not include, in that numbering, citations of other
authorities but omitting Kautilya. In the "Cited Against" column, below, Kautilya's name is understood to
follow the names here given (in which f/ means "followers of") unless we specify "only Kautilya." The
ArS reference for a group of sayings is to the section containing the last cited authority, which is usually
Kautilya. The translation of any passage may be accessed by clicking on the sequence number in the
"Tr" column.
#5 (ArS 1/10:17) is the only Kautilya citation in the entire work to be contained in a sloka verse. Since
that verse is part of a chapter-final sequence (and thus was presumably an early saying recast, rather
than a saying added later), that saying has been retained in the inventory.
The crux in Book 5, where it appears that Kautilya is cited first, is opposed by Bharadvaja, and then has
a final maxim of his own refuting Bharadvaja, is here treated for counting purposes as two Kautilya
maxims (#25-26, below). As will be seen by our note, we have included only one of those maxims in
our translation, namely #26, regarding the anomalous #25 as a later addition.
# Ar S Tr Ci t ed Agai nst / [One authority only]
01 1:2:8 01 f/Manu, f/Brhaspati, f/Usanas
02 1:4:7 03 The Teachers
03 1:7:6 02 [Kautilya only]
04 1:8:27 08
Bharadvaja, Visalaksha, f/Parasara, Pisuna, Kaunapadanta, Vatavyadhi, Bahudantiputra
06 1:15:32 10 Bharadvaja, Visalaksha, f/Parasara, Pisuna
07 1:15:50 11 f/Manu, f/Brhaspati, f/Usanas
08 1:17:22 05 Bharadvaja, Visalaksha, f/Parasara, Pisuna, Kaunapadanta, Vatavyadhi
09 1:17:30 06 f/Ambhi
10 2:7:15 13 f/Manu, f/Parasara, f/Brhaspati, f/Usanas
15 3:6:5 16a [Usanas only]
16 3:7:3 17 [Some] Teachers, Other [Teachers]
17 3:11:47 18 f/ Usanas, f/Manu, f/Brhaspati
19 3:17:5 20 f/Manu, f/Usanas
20 3:17:10 20a [The Teachers only]
21 3:17:14 21 f/Brhaspati
25 5:6:23 - [Kautilya only]
26 5:6:32 07 Bharadvaja
Contact The Project / Return to Inventory / Exit to Kautilya Page
Kautilya's Maxims | ArS Kautilya Inventory #2
Kautilya's Maxims
These are the citations from Kautilya and others in ArS 7. Kautilya's name follows those here given (in
which f/ means "followers of") unless "only" is specified. The ArS reference is to the section containing
the last cited authority. Our translation may be clicked from the sequence number in the third column.
It will be noted that in this topically distinct section (Diplomacy), Kautilya is not cited as against a
specified earlier tradition, as is the case with the law sayings, but simply as differing from unspecified
current doctrine. These sayings may thus have a different history than the previous ones.
27 7:1:5 25 The Teachers, Vatavyadhi
28 7:1:31 The Teachers
48 7:15:11 [Kautilya only]


Kautilya's Maxims | ArS Kautilya Inventory (#3)
Kautilya's Maxims
These are the citations from Kautilya and others in ArS 8. Kautilya's name follows those here given (in
which f/ means "followers of") unless "only" is specified. The ArS reference is to the section containing
the last cited authority. Our translation may be clicked from the sequence number in the third column.
51 8:1:12 The Teachers, Bharadvaja
52 8:1:22 Visalaksha
53 8:1:28 f/Parasara
54 8:1:37 Pisuna
55 8:1:46 Kaunapadanta
56 8:1:55 Vatavyadhi
61 8:3:13 [Unattributed], Bharadvaja
62 8:3:27 Visalaksa
63 8:3:34 f/Parasara
64 8:3:42 Pisuna
65 8:3:52 Kaunapadanta
66 8:3:58 Vatavyadhi


Kautilya's Maxims | ArS Kautilya Inventory (#4)
Kautilya's Maxims
These are the citations from Kautilya and others in ArS 9-14. Kautilya's name follows those here given
(in which f/ means "followers of") unless "Kautilya only" (etc) is specified. The ArS reference is to the
section containing the last cited authority. Our translation may be clicked from the sequence number in
the third column.
We have not listed the repetition of #7 (ArS 1/15:47-50) at ArS 15/1:22, where it is cited to illustrate one
of the text's rhetorical modes.
81 9:1:32 Some, Others
84 10:6:1 - [Usanas only]
85 10:6:2 - [Brhaspati only]
86 12:1:6 46 Bharadvaja, Visalaksha
The implication is that the ArS (1) originally had a smaller subject compass, with Kautilya sayings on
several topics which (2) were later expanded by the addition of other material. Still later, (3) new topics
(chapters) were added, beyond the compass of the topics actually addressed by Kautilya. To give a
slightly Kautilyan color to these new areas, a few Kautilya sayings were removed from their original
location and placed here. We have relocated them to what we think were their probable original
locations, leaving the latter part of the ArS entirely devoid of Kautilya material. It is very conspicuous
that authorities (Usanas, Brhaspati) whom Kautilya elsewhere contradicts have here no Kautilya
response.
The resulting pattern of Kautilya's range of comment, and his reshaping by later tradition to include
different subjects within his range, is also seen elsewhere.
The way in which previous authorities do or do not form sequences of constant order, as they are cited
in ArS, is explored on the following Order of Citation page.


Kautilya's Maxims | ArS Order of Citation
http://web.archive.org/web/20080609184049/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/inventory/order.html[12/27/2010 10:44:39 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
ArS Order of Citation
We here give the order in which earlier authorities are cited in ArS, to see how many strands of tradition
may lie behind the ArS Kautilya citations. The result is apparently three, with a fourth case consisting of
Kautilya himself as cited independently of other opinion. There is only one name common to the three
strands: that of [the followers of] Parasara). The double membership rests on ArS 2/7:12, where
exceptionally they appear in the Manu line. We assume that "the teachers," very frequent from ArS 3
onward, are the same as the "ancient teachers" who are cited only in ArS 1.
1 2 3 4
Ancient Teachers
Bharadvaja
Visalaksa
f/Manu
f/Parasara (f/Parasara)
Pisuna
Bahudantiputra
Vatavyadhi
Bahudantiputra
f/Brhaspati
f/Usanas
f/Ambhi
Kautilya Kautilya Kautilya Kautilya
In column 1, the name Bahudantiputra occurs only in ArS 1/8:24. Of all the authorities cited in addition
to Kautilya, only "the followers of Parasara" occur in more than one sequence. They are normally part of
column 1, whose subject tends to be political and diplomatic theory, though as "followers" they are
unique in that column, which otherwise consists of founders. In ArS 2/7:12 (on fines for
mismanagement) they appear in the Manu sequence, column 2, which tends to be involved with legal
and procedural questions. In the above table, we have parenthesized that one occurrence as
exceptional. It is possible that these were different branches of the Parasara school specializing in
different things. Another possibility is that there was a single Parasara school, which had a wider range
of concerns than rival traditions.
The order of citation of authorities is on the whole constant throughout ArS. Exceptions are the
following, all from column 2: (1) The followers of Usanas are in one case (ArS 3/11:44) listed at the
head and not the tail of the sequence as here given. (2) As against the standard sequence f/Brhaspati
> f/Usanas (three times in ArS 1-2), the reverse order of the founders, Usanas > Brhaspati, occurs in
ArS 10/6:1-2. In each case, the opinion cited first appears to reflect an earlier condition of things,
whether administrative or military. We cannot exclude the possibility that, at some points, the order of
citation in ArS does not reflect a clear chronological sequence, but is calculated for maximum dramatic
effect by the compiler of ArS, and that some or all of the various implied schools may have been more
or less contemporary with each other, or even with Kautilya.
Curiosity naturally attaches to the rogue-elephant school of Ambhi in column 3, mentioned only in ArS
1/17:28. Kangle 2/41 informs us that nothing whatever is known of it beyond this one citation. Its
mention of secret agents may put it relatively late in the time covered by these citations (the topic is
greatly expanded in the later layers of the ArS). As conjectured above, it seems possible that Ambhi, or
more precisely his followers, should be thought of as roughly contemporary with Kautilya.
The comments attributed to the earliest names on these lists do not imply a fundamentally earlier stage
of society than do the latest names. They address the same questions, albeit in different ways, and as
a group they appear to represent at most early and late stages within a period of transition, rather than
early and late phases in the evolution of society or the state.
Kautilya's Maxims | The Statesman (#1)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610045706/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/maxims/statesman/m01.html[12/27/2010 10:20:11 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
1
The Statecraft Tradition
(ArS 1/2:1-9)
[Traditional View]: The four sciences are Philosophy, the Triple Veda, Economics, and
Government.
Followers of Manu: There are only three sciences: the Triple Veda, Economics, and Government.
Philosophy is just a branch of Vedic learning.
Followers of Brhaspati: There are only two sciences: Economics and Government. Vedic learning
is just a cloak to be worn by one wise in the ways of the world.
Followers of Usanas: There is only one science: Government. It includes all the others.
Kautilya: There are indeed four sciences (vidya), so called because from them can be known what is
right and what is profitable.
The ArS compiler proceeds (in 1/2:10-12, continuing through all of 1/3) to elaborate on the content of
the four sciences, which embraced the entire learning of the period. But Kautilya's gloss on "vidya"
better embodies his utilitarian stance toward that learning: what is right (dharma) and what pays (artha).
It will be seen that his maxims range within those limits. He is not a purveyor of Vedic learning, though
he makes a point here of not distancing himself from Vedic learning. At the other end of the scale, he
does not subscribe to the cynical view of the Usanas school: that power gives, or can compel, all other
goods. See also the Epitome.
The progression among the previous authorities, where the number of branches of knowledge moves in
steps from four down to one, suggests that they may have been at least in part composed or revised by
the ArS compiler, for the purpose putting Kautilya's sayings into sharper relief. Linguistically, these prior
sayings show somewhat greater leakage from contemporary Pali into their basic Sanskrit than do the
Kautilya maxims themselves. At the same time, there are differences in the treatment of prior sayings in
different parts of ArS which forbid the conclusion that they were freely invented by the ArS compiler. We
conclude that the prior sayings are liable to a higher level of restatement than those of Kautilya, so that
it might be perilous to reconstruct (for instance) the views of the Brhaspati school of the 04c from the
Brhaspati citations in ArS, but that the prior sayings at least sometimes may have a basis in reality, and
at their most schematic, they will still reflect the ArS compiler's idea of the content of statecraft before
Kautilya.

Contact The Project / To Overview / Exit to Kautilya Page

Kautilya's Maxims
2
The Sage King
(ArS 1/7:3-7)
[One Opinion]: He should enjoy sensual pleasures but without compromising his spritual good and
material well-being. He should not deprive himself of pleasures.
[Another Opinion]: He should devote himself equally to the three goals of life, which interdepend.
If any of them - spiritual good, material well-being, or sensual pleasure - is indulged to excess, it will
harm not only itself, but the other two.
Kautilya: Material well-being is primary. Spiritual good and sensual pleasure both depend on material
well-being.
This further locates Kautilya within the thought of his time. Comments like this are probably the source
of the suggestion that Kautilya had intellectual affinities with the Lokayata, an early group of Indian
materialists.

Contact The Project / TTo Overview / Exit to Kautilya Page

Kautilya's Maxims
3
Achieving Civic Order
(ArS 1/4:5-10)
Ancient Teachers: The King who wishes to bring about civic order should keep the rod raised to
strike. There is no better means than the rod to bring people under control.
Kautilya: No. A King who is severe with the rod is feared by the people; a King who spares the rod
is despised by the people. It is one who is just with the rod who is respected.
A concept of public justice is gaining ground against a previously autocratic ethos.
Just this position - that the King's power depends in part on how he is viewed by those to whom that
power applies, and that severity alone will not make his position as ruler secure - was reached in the
Chinese statecraft debates of the middle and late 04c. See for example the Confucian view of
excessively draconic punishments in LY 12:19.


Kautilya's Maxims
4
The People and The State
(*ArS 13/4:5)
Kautilya: For there is no country without people, and no kingdom without a country.
In the ArS as we have it, this maxim concludes some lines of advice about resettling the population of a
country whose fortress the King is about to besiege. The maxim itself seems to have a larger scope,
and we assume it was moved from its original context, and placed in Book 13 to legitimate that late
addition as having the authority of Kautilya. Our best suggestion is that this maxim was originally located
among the early theoretical sayings of ArS 1.
The idea that the people are the foundation of the state was common to the Chinese Legalist and
Confucian theorists of the late 04c. In the Mencian school (first half of the 03c), it was taken to far more
radical levels than anything that may be read into Kautilya.


Kautilya's Maxims
5
The King and His Heirs
(ArS 1/17:4-27)
[Traditional]: [The King] should guard against them from their birth. Princes, like crabs, are apt to
devour their begetters.
Bharadvaja: Before their father becomes fond of them, they should be secretly disposed of.
Visalaksha: This is cruel, involving as it does the killing of the innocent and the destruction of the
ruling caste. Instead, they should be confined to one place.
The Followers of Parasara: This creates the danger of the snake. The son, thinking "My father
has confined me through fear of my prowess," may contrive to get the father himself in his power. It is
best to locate him in a frontier fortress.
Pisuna: This creates the danger of the ram. Realizing that it is his only means of return, he might
become the ally of the frontier chief. It is best to locate him in the fortress of a neighboring prince, far
from his own territory.
Kaunapadanta: This creates the danger of the calf. The neighboring prince might avail himself of the
calf to milk his father like a cow. It is best to locate him with his mother's kinsmen.
Vatavyadhi: This creates the danger of the banner. With him as their banner, his mother's kinsmen
would make demands like so many mendicants. He should leave him free to indulge in vulgar pleasures
For sons engrossed in pleasures do not become hostile to their father.
Kautilya: This is to aim for your own death while you are still alive. For, like a piece of worm-eaten
wood, a royal family with undisciplined princes would crumble when attacked. When the chief queen is
in her fertile period, priests should make offering to Indra and Brhaspati. When she becomes pregnant, a
doctor should direct the nourishment and delivery of the unborn. When she has given birth, the chaplain
should perform the sacraments for the son. And when he is ready, experts should train him.
Sensible rather than fearful. The King's son is not merely an asset, he is the indispensable asset: the
only means of continuing the lineage, and thus of giving ongoing "life" to the rulership. He should be
nurtured and trained rather than feared. This thought is continued in the following maxim.
It is said that the earlier Magadha rulers (05c-04c according to one chronology) were troubled with
parricide. That milieu is evoked, perhaps in exaggerated form, in the maxims to which Kautilya here
replies. His view might be called more asset-oriented. The killing of Chinese rulers by their heirs and
vice versa is abundantly documented in the centuries preceding the Warring States period. The tale of
Chung-ar, the only surviving son of a ruling father, is among the most famous of these, and is probably
also exaggerated for its emblematic value; for the story, see Watson Tso 40f.

Kautilya's Maxims
6
The Tempting of the Heir
(ArS 1/17:28-33)
The Followers of mbhi: . . . And a secret agent should tempt him with hunting and gambling,
wine and women, saying "Attack your father and seize the kingdom." Another secret agent should
dissuade him.
Kautilya: To awaken one who slumbers in this way is extremely dangerous. For an unfinished object
absorbs whatever it is smeared with. So also this prince, being immature of mind, will take as doctrine
whatever he is told. Thus, one should instruct him in what conduces to spiritual and material good, not
in what is spiritually and materially harmful.
Again, morally commonsensical. What you do to the heir is part of his education, and education should
lead in the right direction. Do not test, rather train. Like the last maxim, this is a counsel of life. As
between Chinese views of life, it patterns with Mencius (Kautilya's contemporary) rather than the later
Sywndz.
The absurd levels of secrecy and intrigue to which the followers of mbhi have evidently here attained
were to be far exceeded by the later layers of the Arthashastra.


Kautilya's Maxims
7
The Rulership Transition
(*ArS 5/6-24, 32-36)
Bharadvaja: When the King is dying, the minister should induce members of the family, princes and
principal officers fight against one another or against other principal officers. When any one does fight,
he should bring about his death by inciting an uprising of the people. Or, getting rid of the members of
the family, princes, and principal officers, he should seize the kingdom himself. For if the father fights
with sons and the sons with the father in order to win the kingdom, what becomes of the constituting
power, the minister who is the one support of the kingdom? (29) He should not disdain what has come
to him of its own accord.
Kautilya: (32) This involves inciting the subject population to revolt. It is wrong, and it is also
uncertain in its outcome. He should place on the throne a prince with good personal qualities. In the
absence of such a one, he should call together the high officers and, introducing to them a prince not
addicted to vice, a princess, or the pregnant queen, he should say "Let this be a charge to you: have
regard for his father, and for your own good qualities and noble birth; he is only a symbol, and you are
the real masters. Otherwise what can be done?" When he says this, secret agents among them should
be prompted to respond "Who else but this King, with your guidance, will be able to protect the Four
Varnas?" And replying "So be it," the minister should invest with the royal authority the prince, princess,
or pregnant queen, and should introduce them to kinsmen, relations, and the envoys of allies and
enemies.
This deals with the problem of the death of the King when the succession has not been securely fixed
in advance. The stratagem is intended to repair the succession, artificially producing support among
those most closely involved, and to present an orderly face to the outside world. It agrees with #6 in
having the maintenance of legitimate succession as the sole goal of policy.
These two sayings were later relocated to Book 5 in order to legitimate that later material by giving it a
Kautilyan presence. They are there preceded by a long passage which at its end is ascribed to
Kautilya, and it is this advice to which the saying of Bharadvaja is nominally addressed in refutation.
That Kautilya replies, in 5/6:32f, with a second method of securing an orderly rulership transition, has
been recognized as a difficulty. Nowhere else in ArS does a Kautilya saying occur otherwise than at the
end of any other sayings which are cited on the same subject. We assume that 5/6:1-23 are an
invention of the later compiler of Book 5, and that the Bharadvaja saying did not originally begin with
the present text's "No," which we have accordingly removed. It is possible that a preceding saying by a
different ancient authority was lost in the transfer from Book 1; if so, the preceding authority was either
"The Teachers" (as in ArS 8/1:5) or unattributed (as in ArS 8/3:1-7). The material now preceding the
Bharadvaja saying contains several references to other parts of the ArS, which we interpret as a late
organizing gesture, and it involves much more elaborate secret agent subterfuges than the Kautilya
passage above, whose use of agents is consistent with that in Maxim #6.
We have omitted the folksaying 5/6:30 and the following verse summation 5/6:31 from the end of the
Bharadvaja saying. Both folk material and intrusive slokas seem to be characteristic of later material. We
have also ended the Kautilya maxim at 5/6:36. The subsequent material deals with events occurring
after the rulership transition itself, and we interpret them as an expansion by the later compiler.

Kautilya's Maxims
8
Choosing Ministers
(ArS 1/8:1-8, 10-29)
Bharadvaja: [The ruler] should make his fellow-students his ministers, since their character and
ability are known to him, and they will have his confidence.
Visalaksha. No. Having been his intimates, they will treat him with disrespect. He should choose
those who resemble him in personal qualities. Since they have the same foibles and vices, they will fear
that he knows their secrets, and so will not dare offend him.
Followers of Parasara: But this works the other way also: fearing that they know his secrets, he
will acquiesce in what they do or do not do. He should choose those who have aided him in danger,
since their loyalty has been proved.
Pisuna. No; this is mere devotion, not intelligence. He should choose those who have shown their
ability by bringing in the expected income, or more, from assigned projects.
Kaunapadanta. No; these will not necessarily possess other qualities which are necessary in a
minister. He should choose those inherited from his father and grandfather, since their reliability is
known. Being kindred, they will not desert him even if he behaves badly. This principle may be seen
even among animals, for cattle, passing by a herd of unrelated cattle, will abide rather with those that
are their kin.
Vartavyadhi. No; these will take charge of everything, and act as though they were the masters. He
should choose new men, versed in politics. New men, looking on the wielder of the rod of punishment
as though he were the God of the Underworld, will not cause problems.
Bahudantiputra. No; one familiar with principles but inexperienced in affairs might fail in practice.
He should choose those of noble birth, intellect, integrity, courage, and loyalty, these being the
supremely important qualities.
Kautilya: All these criteria are justifiable, for ability is best judged from performance. Assigning rank
in accordance with their ability, and giving them suitable assignments, he should appoint all of them as
ministers - but not as counsellors.
Each criterion offers grounds for a favorable expectation of future performance. Note the distinction
between those appointed for skill in execution (ministers) and for advice in planning (counsellors). The
"ministers" at this time included some who were merely managers (the criterion of Pisuna envisions
exactly that sort of responsibility) and not high policy advisors, as would be typical of a relatively simple
and early governmental structure, in which specialization of function has begun to occur, but has not yet
been formalized in named offices. See further Kautilya's advice on advising, given in the next few
maxims.
We have removed the interruptive sloka 1/8:9. On the other hand, 1/8:29, the Kautilya saying, is not
suspect even though it is in verse, since it occurs at the end of the chapter, where material previously in
the text may have been later versified. As for the selection criteria mentioned by the various authorities,
it is notable that birth is not the only one; it is not even very common. The idea that performance counts
more than background may be expected to occur at times of social broadening. For Chinese examples
of advice offered in such conditions, see LY 6:6 (c0460) and, even more reminiscent of the present
Kautilya saying, LY 6:8. Choosing staff according to ability was a typical recommendation of the 04c
Chinese statecraft writers; see for example MZ 8 (c0360) and GZ 3:17 (c0340), with an echo in the
somewhat later Mencius (MC) 1B9 (c0315).


Kautilya's Maxims
9
Testing the Integrity of Ministers
(ArS 1/10:16-17)
The Teachers: He should appoint ministers who have passed tests of their intentions, and the trial by
fear, to duties appropriate to their integrity.
Kautilya: However, under no circumstances must the King make himself or the Queen a target in
order to ascertain the probity of ministers.
Some tests, like the one laid out in ArS 1/10:3, evidently envisioned temptations, suggested by secret
agents, to seize power from the King. Kautilya issues a warning against this kind of jeopardy. Compare
the same stance in Maxim #6, on testing the heir apparent.
Apart from the tail of Maxim #8, this is the only ArS Kautilya maxim in sloka form. It is part of a series
of slokas at the end of ArS 1/10, and we assume that, with the following 1/10:18-20, it is original
material later versified, and not a later verse interpolation. See our separate textual Argument.


Kautilya's Maxims
10
Consulting Ministers
(ArS 1/15:13-16, 18-21, 23-41)
Bharadvaja: Divulging confidential counsel is fatal to the security and well-being of the King and his
officers. Hence he should deliberate alone about sensitive matters. Counselors have others they consult
with, and these in turn still others, leading eventually to disclosure.
Visalaksha: There is no advantage in deliberating alone. The King's affairs include the known, the
unknown, and the inferred. Finding out the unknown, adding to the known, resolving contradictions in
what is known, and learning more about the imperfectly known, can only be done with the aid of
ministers. Rather, he should consult those of mature intellect.
Followers of Parasara: This is how to get greater certainty from counsel, not how to make it
secure. He should consult about a matter like the one he has in mind ("We did it this way," or "If this
happened, what should be done?"). He should then apply their advice to the actual case. Thus advice
can be had while still maintaining secrecy.
Pisuna: No. Counselors who are asked about a remote affair, whether it has taken place or not, will
give their opinion casually or disclose it; that is the flaw. He should instead deliberate with those who
are qualified for the specific undertaking. Consulting with these only, he achieves effectiveness in
deliberation and also maintains secrecy.
Kautilya: No; this is a situation with no fixed rule. He should in general take counsel with three or
four, since if he confers with one only, he may not be able to reach a decision in difficult matters. Also,
a single counselor is unchecked, and if he consults with two, he will be controlled by them if they agree
and ruined by them if they disagree. With three or four, this is less likely to happen, though there is still
great danger if it should happen. With more than three or four, it may be difficult to reach decisions or
maintain security. As appropriate to the time, the place, and the matter under consideration, he may
consult with one or two, or deliberate by himself, according to his and their special competence.
Here again, Kautilya takes a pragmatic and eclectic stance, combining what is workable in the imperfect
theories of his predecessors. A judgement of appropriateness in context, rather than a rule mechanically
applied, seems to be his hallmark in these matters. His sense of the dynamics of group decision-making
agrees with that of modern masters such as Parkinson, for whom five people is the maximum effective
committee (p34).
We have eliminated two interpolated slokas, 1/15:17 (after the Bharadvaja maxim) and 1/15:22 (after
the Visalaksha maxim). The latter includes a seeming folk saying. It is the association of folk material
and sloka form in this and other passages which inclines us to suspect all folk material as later
embellishments of the text (see our notes to Maxim #7 and Maxim #8). For the concept "resolving
contradictions," in an ethical context but still with judicial or perhaps anti-judicial overtones, see LY
12:10.

Kautilya's Maxims
11
The Size of the Council
(ArS 1/15:47-50)
Followers of Manu: He should appoint a council of twelve ministers.
Followers of Brhaspati: Sixteen.
Followers of Usanas: Twenty.
Kautilya: According to their capacity.
Remembering Maxim #10, these prescriptions are apparently meant for a pool of expert managers, from
three or four of whom advice is sought on a particular occasions. Kautilya avoids a fixed rule and
focuses on the practical issue, which is the amount of relevant expertise available for inclusion.
The previous authorities seem to reflect the usual course of an expanding early bureaucracy, with its
need for ever more precise expertise. The drift toward governmental expertise is resisted in LY 13:4
(c0322). The classic statement of the expansion principle is Parkinson 33f.


Kautilya's Maxims
12
Detecting Peculation
(ArS 2/9:10-12)
The Teachers: If one with a small income makes large expenditures, he is using revenues that
belong to the state. In the reverse case, when he spends in conformity with his income, he is not doing
this.
Kautilya: This can only be detected by spies.
Spending in excess of income is still the standard indication of peculation. It can however take an audit
to uncover it.
This and Maxim #13 are now located in a long section (ArS 2) describing the duties of the bureaucrats
in great detail. Except for these two passages, ArS 2 contains no Kautilya maxims, and that book is
best regarded as a later expansion, beyond the limits of Kautilya's own thought and experience. Maxims
#12-13 do not use the word "officer," and it may be presumed that in Kautilya's time bureaucrats were
not yet distinguished from the lower ministers.


Kautilya's Maxims
13
Punishing Peculation
(ArS 2/7:9, 11-15)
[Unattributed]: And he should have their activities watched by spies.
Followers of Manu: For . . . loss of revenue, the fine is as much as the sum lost, and as much
again for each successive instance . . .
Followers of Parasara: In all cases it shall be eight times.
Followers of Brhaspati: Ten times.
Followers of Usanas: Twenty times.
Kautilya: According to the offense.
Again the earlier authorities show a steady escalation, and again Kautilya invokes a canon of local
appropriateness. Among other things, he may want to keep the structure going. Escalating penalties is
not always an efficient way to do this.
The unattributed comment at the beginning has the merit of linking up verbally with Maxim #12 (which
follows rather than precedes it in the present text). ArS 2/7:10, which now follows that unattributed
comment, is untypically long for a single numbered ArS segment, and may have undergone expansion
after the numbering of the text was fixed. If so, the wording of the "Followers of Manu" maxim may
have been adjusted to suit that expansion. We have left ellipses at the places where those adjustments
seem to have been made. The core saying seems plausible as a canon of watchfulness over ministerial
conduct. We should remember that ministers in Kautilya's time seem to have been, not the heads of
bureaucratic departments, but staff specialists less formally charged with certain functions. The
bureaucracy is here enduring growing pains.


Kautilya's Maxims | The Judge (#14)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610045706/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/maxims/judge/m14.html[12/27/2010 10:36:24 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
14
A Wife Leaving the Home
(ArS 3/4:9-12)
[Previous Discussion]: The wife is liable to a fine if she leaves the house of her husband.
The Teachers: In cases of ill-treatment by a husband, there is no offense in a wife going to the
house of her husband's kinsman, or a guarantor, or the village headman, or a guardian, or a female
mendicant, or to that of her own kinsman, provided there are no [unmarried] males in it.
Kautilya: Or even if there are males in it. How can there be any impropriety, in the case of a chaste
woman? This is not something that is difficult to understand.
The impatience of Kautilya with the pettifogging of his predecessors is manifest.
It is logically tempting to transfer Maxim #18 (on witnesses) to the head of this section. In that same
logical spirit, the ArS author has begun his Book 3 with general guidelines for court procedure (including
some of his own remarks on witnesses, not based on citations from Kautilya). But the later Laws of
Manu introduce what might be called family law before the civil and criminal sections with which the
rules of witnesses are largely associated, and the Kautilya maxims in ArS 3 (as distinct from their
framing structure) seem to represent an early version of that tradition. We conclude that the order of
Kautilya sayings as we have it in ArS represents a genuine tradition, and we have tried to leave that
tradition intact.
It is notable that this comment addresses the case of separation under special conditions. There is no
matching Kautilya prescription for regular divorce, or, for that matter, for regular marriage. It might be
thought that these parts of his legal thinking are simply not preserved in ArS. But ArS 3/2-3 does
provide for more standard cases of marriage and divorce; it simply does so without citing the opinion of
Kautilya or any other authority. We think it likely that the ArS framing text is later than Kautilya, and
reflects a more advanced stage of legal evolution. In Kautilya we seem to be witnessing an earlier
phase: the emergence of law as a public provision limited to special cases not already dealt with by
religious prescription or general custom. The maxims represent the residue, and not the totality, of
standard procedure. Similarly, the Laws of Gortyn (Crete, 05c; see Willetts) treat of marriage and
inheritance only in special situations that were presumably not covered by the common practice of the
time (Sealey Justice 69, 79). The extension of law to normal cases, in fact, the incorporation of the
whole range of common-practice rights and duties into formal law, would appear to be a later
development, in which local traditions are wholly subsumed in central traditions..

Kautilya's Maxims
15
Remarriage of an Abandoned Wife
(ArS 3/4:31-36)
[Previous Discussion]: Abandonment by the husband in a consummated marriage.
[Unattributed]: After a lawful marriage, the woman shall wait for a husband who has left without
informing her for seven [menstrual] periods if no news is heard of him, or for a year if news is heard. If
he has left after informing her, she shall wait for five periods when no news is heard, or ten if news is
heard. If he had paid only part of the dowry, she shall wait for three periods if there is no news, or
seven periods if there is news of him. If he had paid the full dowry, then five periods if there is no news,
or ten if there is news. She may then, with the permission of the judges, remarry as she wishes.
Kautilya: For the neglect of the period is the violation of a lawful duty.
The husband's neglect of conjugal duty creates a ground of action by the wife. The rules on which
Kautilya comments are designed to establish the legal presumption of abandonment in various
circumstances. Knowledge of the husband's intention to return naturally prolongs the process. This
recognition of the rightful expectation of a wife contrasts with the later, more restrictive position reflected
in the Laws of Manu (9:76f), which entirely forbid remarriage (9:65f). The gradual reduction of actions
permitted for women is a social process. In that process, the position of Kautilya (and the prior opinion
which, in effect, he approves) represents a still relatively early stage.
Here again, as in Maxim #14, is a special situation where the woman is not represented by a parent or
husband, and must seek her rights herself. We suspect that such cases, which were not provided for in
religion or custom, and thus of their nature required adjudication by some other authority, were the
germination point for the beginning of formal law, both in India and in the Mediterranean.


Kautilya's Maxims
16
Heirs Without Inheritance
(ArS 3/5:23-25)
[Previous Discussion]: Division of the inheritance.
The Teachers: Those without property shall divide even the pottery water-vessels.
Kautilya: This is mere verbiage. Only what exists can be divided, not what does not exist.
This (compare Maxim #14) is the second impatient comment of Kautilya on the formulations of the
jurists of his time. He seems to be a severe judge of judges.


Kautilya's Maxims | The Judge (#16a)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610045720/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/maxims/judge/m16a.html[12/27/2010 10:38:42 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
[16a]
Partition of Animals
(ArS 3/6:1-5)
Usanas: Among sons of the same wife, the share of the eldest is goats in the case of Brahmins,
horses in the case of the ruling caste, cattle in the case of Vaisyas, and sheep in the case of Sudras.
The one-eyed or lame are the share of the middle son, and those of mixed colors are the share of the
youngest. If there are no animals, the eldest shall receive one of every ten articles with the exception of
jewels, since he bears the obligation of maintaining sacrifices. This is the division recommended by
Usanas.
ArS here adds no comment by Kautilya. The rule laid down in ArS 15/1:41 (see Kangle 2/211) is that in
such cases Kautilya should be imagined as agreeing with earlier opinion. One difficulty with applying
that rule in the present case is that in his comments on administrative and judicial precedents, Kautilya
often dispenses with minute and rigid rules of just this sort, and prefers to judge according to
circumstances. We also note that Kautilya's pronouncements do not normally consider caste
differences, which are the main burden of the Usanas rule. We thus don't feel justified in including this
rule among those either stated or approved by Kautilya. We include it, as a background item, merely for
completeness.
The low value of the mixed-color animals is perhaps due to their unsuitability for sacrificial purposes;
compare LY 6:6, which uses the metaphor of a parti-colored sacrificial animal precisely to protest
against intrinsic social distinctions.


Kautilya's Maxims
17
Status of Sons as Heirs
(ArS 3/7:1-3)
The Teachers: Seed, dropped on another's land, belongs to the owner of the land.
Others: The mother is only a seed-pouch; the child belongs to him who owns the seed.
Kautilya: Both types occur.
The issue here is whether the legitimacy of a son as an heir is derived from the status of the father or
that of the mother. Previous judgements were extrapolations from the law of ownership, suggesting that
this area of law was older and more developed than family law as such. Here, as often, Kautilya seems
to reserve the right to judge according to particular circumstances, and not by rule. He is consistently
more sensitive than his predecessors to the novelty of the family situation.


Kautilya's Maxims
18
The Duty of Witnesses
(ArS 3/11:44-49)
Followers of Usanas: In cases of conflicting testimony due to the stupidity of the witnesses, the
witnesses shall be fined the lowest, middle, and highest fines according as the question concerns place,
time, or fact.
Followers of Manu: False witnesses, whether they create a figment or deny a reality, shall be fined
ten times the amount at issue.
Followers of Brhaspati: If witnesses through their stupidity invalidate a court proceeding, they shall
be tortured to death.
Kautilya: No. Witnesses have a duty to respect the truth. If they do not, they shall be fined 24 panas.
If they fail to testify, half that.
As in Maxim #17, Kautilya declines to recognize an earlier attempt to extrapolate from the law of
property. He thus avoids the "consequences" trap (relating the penalty to the amount at issue in the
trial), and derives his rule from the primary obligation of the witness to tell the truth. Their duty is not to
the matter being decided, but to the process of decision itself. False testimony is twice as serious,
because it is twice as disruptive of a just outcome, as a refusal to testify. This is a step in
generalization: the rule for severity derives not from the details of the case, but from a generalized
concept of legal process.
With Maxim #18 we family law and take up civil law. It is at this point that Kautilya, whose sequence of
topics is respected by the arranger of the ArS core sayings, and by the later compendium of "Manu"
after him, introduces the main technicalities pertaining to witnesses. The order in which previous
authorities are cited is different here than in other cases; the usual order would put "followers of Manu"
first. See our summary of these sequence questions on the Order page. We may note that the
"followers of Usanas" pronouncement has the same precise, even quiddling, quality that we noted in
Maxim #16a.


Kautilya's Maxims
19
Contracts For Labor
(ArS 3/14:6-9)
[Previous Discussion]: Enforcement of agreements concerning work for wages.
The Teachers: If the employer fails to provide work when the laborer has presented himself, the work
shall be considered as done.
Kautilya: No. A wage is for work done, not for work not done. But if the employer allows even a little
work to be done, and then forbids more, the whole shall be considered as done.
A contract is an offer, and not a situation in being. Thus, an agreement to provide work is not operative
until the work has begun. It is with the acceptance of the offer (the provision of work for the laborer who
shows up pursuant to the contract) that the contract comes alive. But once alive, the contract has full
force, even if the employer then attempts to arrest or limit the agreed work. The laborer has fulfilled his
obligation as far as he was able to. Kautilya is saying that one party cannot rewrite a contract once it is
in effect. There is also the implication that the contract binds both parties, even though they may be of
different castes. It creates functional equivalance before the law. We may have here a faint precursor of
some of the social policies of the later Maurya ruler Ashoka.


Kautilya's Maxims
20
Penalties For Robbery
(ArS 3/17:3-5)
[Previous Discussion]: Direct and forcible seizure is called robbery; indirect or fraudulent seizure is
called theft.
Followers of Manu: For robbery of jewels, or of forest products whether of high or low value, the
fine shall be equal to their value.
Followers of Usanas: Double the value.
Kautilya: In accordance with the offense.
Again Kautilya reserves the right to weigh circumstances in passing sentence. The value of the thing
stolen does not exhaust the list of relevant circumstances.
Mention of "forest products of high value" cannot but remind Chinese readers of the luxury bamboo
articles exported, probably in boutique-size packloads, from southwest China to India in the 02c (for
mere local bamboo, see Maxim #20a). The discovery that such articles were turning up as far away as
the northwest Indian markets led the Han emperor to attempt to punch a highway through to India by
the southwestern route. This would have avoided the dangers which at the time attended the route
through the northern deserts to the entrepot of Bactria and beyond. But it was beyond the engineering
resources of the time, and the "Burma Road" came into being only much later.


Kautilya's Maxims | The Judge (#20a)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610045725/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/maxims/judge/m20a.html[12/27/2010 10:42:17 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
[20a]
Equivalents For Robbery
(ArS 3/17:6-10)
The Teachers: For articles of small value such as flowers, fruits, vegetables, roots, turnips, cooked
rice, leather goods, bamboo, and earthenware, the fine is a minimum of twelve panas and a maximum
of twenty-four. For articles of greater value such as iron, wood and rope, small animals, and cloth, a
minimum of twenty-four panas and a maximum of forty-eight. For articles of still greater value such as
copper, steel, bronze, glass, and ivory, the lowest fine for violence: a minimum of forty-eight panas and
a maximum of ninety-six. For large animals, human beings, fields, houses, gold, gold coins, and fine
fabrics, the middle fine for violence: a minimum of two hundred and a maximum of five hundred. For
one who forcibly binds or releases from bondage a man or woman, the highest fine for violence: a
minimum of five hundred and a maximum of one thousand.
Compare Maxim #16a, another detailed statement that Kautilya does not personally address. This list by
category is presumably invoked when the value of the thing stolen (as required by Maxim #20) cannot
readily be determined. Each category contains a range of fines in the ratio of 2:1. This corresponds to
the range sanctioned by Kautilya in Maxim #20, and it may perhaps be assumed that this rule was an
acceptable supplement in the eyes of Kautilya or of the early codifiers of his thought.
In economic history terms, it is notable that the silver pana coin is the only one relied on in the
Teachers' maxim. No higher-valued gold coin seems to have been in regular circulation at the time,
even though gold coins are mentioned as among items that may be stolen. As has been suggested for
the ancient Near East and for Greece (see Robinson), gold coins may have been used not in ordinary
exchange, but on rarer occasions for the transfer of capital. The mention of "gold and gold coins" tends
to confirm this suggestion. Gold coin would have been a minted, that is, a certified, form of gold bullion.


Kautilya's Maxims
21
Conspiracy to Commit Robbery
(ArS 3/17:11-14)
Followers of Brhaspati: One who induces another to commit robbery and says "I accept the
responsibility [for the intended crime]" shall pay double the prescribed fine. One who says "I will furnish
any money required" shall pay four times the fine. One who offers [to his fellow conspirators] an exact
amount, saying "I shall give so much," shall pay that sum plus the fine.
Kautilya: But if he should [successfully] plead anger, intoxication, or mental confusion, he shall pay
only the prescribed fine.
Kautilya does not object to the distinctions made in the earlier opinion, but as before, he wants a
certain situational leeway - a sliding scale - for judges in particular cases. This implies a sense of
proportionality to the offense, not a mere whim on the part of the judge. Of the robbery itself, we may
note its entrepreneurial nature. As here glimpsed, it not only has a planning process, but one or more
associates or backers who invest money in its outcome. Robbery is a business.
The situational leeway or discretion accorded a Chinese official, in judging cases or in applying policy, is
called chywaen. The word is etymologically related to the sliding weight on a steelyard balance. An early
example is in LY 9:30a (c0405), where it means "exercise of discretion" or judgement in recommending
policy alternatives. A crux in 04c Chinese military theory is how much discretion is allowed to a
commander in the field, in implementing the details or the general intent of the ruler's orders. Early
layers of the Sundz text (before c0320) assert such a right, but later layers (after c0315) reverse this
position by revoking it. The ruler has grown stronger in the meantime.


Kautilya's Maxims
22
Assault
(ArS 3/19:17-18)
[Previous Discussion]: Individual and group assault.
The Teachers: An old case of assault or criminal trespass is not actionable.
Kautilya: There should be no release of an offender from responsibility.
That is, there should be no rule of limitations on crimes against the person. We might generalize the
principle here implied by saying that an injury is a continuing fact, and remains always actionable.
Compare Kautilya's treatment of the abandoned wife, where the restoration of her right to marriage and
family has a fairly rapid timetable (Maxim #15). We might then formulate another implied Kautilya
principle: Some rights become worthless if not promptly exercised. In accountancy terms, Kautilya's
judgements often have the effect of preserving ledger value, whether positive or (as in this case)
negative.
The larger context is the practice of governmental amnesty. One concludes that, like the historical
Confucius (see LY 4:11), Kautilya would not have approved of amnesty.


Kautilya's Maxims
23
Priority of Claim
(ArS 3/19:19-21)
The Teachers: In a case of assault, the one who first comes to court wins, since only one unable to
bear the injury will seek redress.
Kautilya: No matter which party is the first to approach the court, the case shall be decided by the
testimony of witnesses. If there are no witnesses, the injury or other evidence shall be decisive.
Kautilya grants no bonus to the litigious person per se. The previous rule is a presumption in favor of
the first complainant as being the injured party. This is psychologically intelligible, though it ignores the
possibility of pre-emptive counter-claims. In Roman law, there was an advantage in being the accuser
rather than the defendant. Here, we infer that this advantage had been exploited by unscrupulous
persons. Kautilya's rule is designed to eliminate that advantage, and, as so often, to judge according to
the circumstances.
Implicit in Kautilya's willingness to rely on wounds as evidence of injury is the existence of some sort of
forensic medicine. For the way a parallel tradition treats the description and legal interpretation of
wounds, including the detection of self-inflicted and thus juridically fraudulent wounds, see the 0217
Chin law codes of Shweihudi (Hulsew Ch'in 192).


Kautilya's Maxims
24
Gambling
(ArS 3/20:3-7)
The Teachers: In gambling cases, the lowest fine for violence shall be imposed on the winner, and
the middle fine for violence on the loser. For the loser, being foolishly desirous of winning, will not be
able to stand the loss [and thus will not be inclined to repeat his offense].
Kautilya: No. If the loser is to be punished with a double fine, no one will approach the King in such
matters, and it should be noted that most gamblers cheat.
In the Teachers' view, both the winner and loser are liable to penalties. Then gambling as such must be
illegal in this period, and we are to envision court cases as based on a denunciation of the winner by
the loser. The loser would presumably have hoped to retrieve his losses, most likely by proving his
accusation and collecting some sort of restitution from the winner, or reward from the court. The
Teachers' policy is manifestly illogical, and its framers seem to acknowledge this in giving a reason for
their rule. They claim that their rule will discourage the loser from future gambling. Kautilya remarks that
their rule will instead have the effect of discouraging losers from denouncing winners, with the result that
gambling will not be brought to the attention of the authorities and so penalized. He does not object to
fining both parties, remarking that both are likely to be cheaters (so that question of right is in principle a
toss-up). He merely objects to imposing extra penalties on the probable informant. The presumed
dishonesty of both parties, if not in the instance before the court, then in general, prevents the rendering
of a judgement that is materially to the advantage of either. There is no question of right in an inherently
wrongful act.
For the justification of a rule in terms of its effect on the person sentenced, compare Maxim #23.
Kautilya is concerned rather to keep the legal mechanism itself in viable condition.
ArS 3 goes on to prescribe for legalized gambling (with fines for cheating, not for gambling as such).
That chapter had begun (ArS 3/20:1-2) with provision for a Director of Gambling, who can impose fines
for gambling except on officially approved premises. This indicates a development between the situation
Kautilya addresses, where gambling was apparently prohibited, and the one implied by the post-
Kautilyan parts of the ArS record, where the state asserts a monopoly on gambling, and profits from it
while at the same time controlling it.
The co-optation by the state of previously ignored or forbidden money developments (there, principally
trade) occurred in China during the social and economic transitions of the 05th and 04th centuries.
The reader will have noticed (or can see from the Overview) that the Kautilya maxims, arranged by
theme, tend to go in pairs. It further emerges that some of the pairs can be construed as containing
between them a rule of law which is not apparent from either in isolation. Such constitutive pairing is a
device of structure that is carried to great lengths in the Analects (see Brooks Analects Appendix 1).
Against that structural tendency, we note that this particular maxim, the last in this section, stands
unpaired in the ArS. An unpaired section final maxim, which we call an "envoi," is also a standard
Analects structural device, but has the character of a retrospective summation. This piece is simply
unpaired, and is not an example of the Analects-type formal device.

Kautilya's Maxims | The Diplomat (#25)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610045709/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/maxims/diplomat/m25.html[12/27/2010 10:28:08 PM]
Kautilya's Maxims
25
Policy Options
(ArS 7/1:2-5)
The Teachers: The six policy options are: peace, war, holding steady, attacking, alliance, or pursuing
some combination of these.
Vatavyadhi: There are only two: all the "six" can be derived from the two options of peace and war.
Kautilya: There are really six, because of situational differences.
Here as in Maxim #1, Kautilya resists conceptual simplification. It is easy to agree with Vatavyadhi (and
with Kangle ad loc, who finds "some truth" in his view) that war and peace are the basic situations. But
Kautilya's point still holds: there are varieties and combinations which make it necessary not to limit
discussion to just those options. Note for example the contrast between a general state of war (vigraha,
option #2) and a limited military maneuver for local advantage (yna, option #4). Note also that Kautilya
agrees with the earlier view that a peace policy does not exclude a war policy, hence the option (#6) of
simultaneously pursuing both. Policy options are best if not reduced to their extremes.
The preceding chapter, ArS 6, expounds the schematic "mandala" theory of twelve surrounding kings
and the possible dynamic relations between them. It never cites Kautilya. The mandala chapter was in
all probability a theoretical refinement added later to ArS. The first line of ArS 7 links the mandala
theory to the ensuing discussion. That ensuing discussion, constituting the bulk of ArS 7, is based at
many points on Kautilya maxims, and has a simpler theoretical basis. ArS 7/1:1 is thus a bridging
passage, and ArS 7/1:2, with which the above passage begins, was the beginning of the original
Arthashstra treatment of policy.


Brooks.2006 07.KautilyasMaxims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brooks.2006 07.KautilyasMaxims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kautilya's Maxims | Contents

http://web.archive.org/web/20070807172054/www.umass.edu/wsp/kautilya/front/contents.html[12/27/2010 10:10:09 PM]

You might also like