KAUTILYA ON LEADERSHIP: LESSONS FROM ARTHASHASTRA

SHAHAB SHABBIR
Research Scholar
FACULTY OF LAW
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH-202002
baboosahab@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

State has its soul in leadership. An effective and pragmatic leadership is thus a sine qua
non in statecraft. Acharya Chanakya or Kautilya’s magnum-opus ‘Arthshastra’ is a
treatise that primarily deals with the economic administration but equally holds the
notions of ethics, diplomacy and politics. Taking his this work as a collection of thoughts
on political realism, here is a humble attempt to peep inside and ponder over the
elements of leadership by one of a great diplomat of ages.

INTRODUCTION:

Acharya Chanakya or Kautilya was the minister in the Kingdom of Chandragupta

Maurya during 317 – 293 B.C. He has been considered as one of the shrewdest ministers
of the times who has explained his views on State, War, Social Structures, Diplomacy,
Ethics, Politics and Statecraft very clearly in his book called Arthashastra that he wrote
in around 4th century before Christ. It consists of 15 chapters, 380 Shlokas and 4968
Sutras. In all probability, this treatise is the first ever book written on ethics of Statecraft.
It is essentially on the art of governance and has an instructional tone (Kohli, 1995). The
Mauryan Empire was larger than the later British India which expanded from the Indian
Ocean to Himalayas and up to Iran in the West. After Alexander left India, this was the
most powerful kingdom in India and Acharya Chanakya or Kautilya (hereafter Kautilya)
was minister who advised the King. He thus wrote this treatise for his Swamy (the king)
Chandragupta Maurya and stated in its preface that it has been written as a guide for
"those who govern" (Zysk, 1987). Kautilya was interested in establishment and operation
of the machinery through which the king preserves the integrity and solidarity of the State
and generates power.

Kautilya’s work is primarily a book of political realism where State is paramount and
King shall carry out duties as advised in his book to preserve his state (Kenneth, 1987).
Kautilya’s work is so deep rooted in realism that he goes to describe the gory and brutal
means a King must adopt to be in power. This could have been one reason why Ashoka,
the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya whom Kautilya advised renounced violence and
war thus taking the path of Dharma or Morals. (Mukherjee, 1976)

In this paper, I shall primarily focus on Kautilya’s thoughts on political management and
diplomacy which are indeed the pragmatic approach for an effective leadership.
ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS:

Kautilya is aware that for efficient running of an organisation or the State, elaborate
machinery has to be established. He is equally clear on the organizational aspects, human
dimensions of an organization as well as the leadership requirement of an organization.
On the organizational aspects, Kautilya evolves an elaborate hierarchy under the king.
The king appoints Amatya, the Prime Minister. Amatya operates the day-to-day
machinery of the State through a council of officials consisting of Mantris, the Ministers,
Senapati, the warlord or the Defence Minister, Purohit, the Chief Justice and Yuvaraj, the
Heir Apparent or identified successor to the throne. Kautilya weaves a design of a tall
hierarchy for governance going down to the level of village through his concept of
Mandalas (Kohli, 1995). Gram Panchayats and Panchayati Raj set up that was adopted by
the Government of India can be considered as a logical derivative of Kautilya's attempt to
bring administration to the lowest appropriate level in the machinery of State. His
Arthashashtra has detailed policies for the society, individual industries, labour and
employment, calamities and control of vices (Boesche, 2003). At this stage, he shows the
depth of his knowledge of the major element of effective and efficient implementation of
business processes, namely, the human aspect of management. He observes that the State,
as an organization, is a social organization with economic aim.

The Arthashashtra has a good deal of thoughts on the qualitative candidature for the
government machinery. Kautilya is specific about the qualities Mantris must possess. He
writes about these qualities as qualifying standards for appointment as a Mantri. These
qualities are: Drudhachitta (power of concentration), Shilavan (character), Pragna
(thinking capability), Vangmi (communication skills) and Daksha (observation/
vigilance). In addition, he highlights the competencies that a Mantri must possess. These
competencies are the same as the competencies advocated by the management gurus of
the present times, namely, Knowledge, Skills and Attitude. A candidate possessing these
qualities must get the keys to assist the leader in running statecraft (Gupta, 1987).
According to Kautilya, the essentials of the State should be taken care of through
'constituents of the State' identified by him. These constituents are: Swamy (King),
Amatya (Prime Minister), Janapada (populated territory), Durga (fort), Ksha (treasury),
Bala (force / army) and Mitra (ally). His choice of Mitra as a constituent of the State is
interesting. He thinks of a network of allies to fortify a kingdom. Mitra is a king who
would come to the support of Swamy, if Swamy's kingdom is attacked by another king. It
will also be the duty of the Swamy to extend all help if the Mitra is attacked by another
king (Mukherjee, 1976). In today's world of globalization, the same concept is applied
when corporate form alliances to fortify their territories from external dangers such as
cheap imports and the entry of strong competitors.

MANAGERIAL SKILLS:

As Arthashastra itself means ‘the science of Economics’, thus one can easily observe that
several concepts of present day economics management theories have been explicitly
explained by Kautilya in his work. As in the present day management, the importance of
vision, mission and motivation was captured in Arthashastra (Zysk, 1987). Kautilya
advise his Swamy to rule through Prabhu Shakti (vision), Mantra Shakti (mission) and
Utsah Sahkti (motivation). Kautilya reminds his Swamy that his objectives for his rule
are:
 Acquire power;
 Consolidate what has been acquired;
 Expand what has been acquired; and
 Enjoy what has been acquired. (Kautilyam Arthaśāstram, ed.1909)

Finally, from the point of view of management of the kingdom, Kautilya's advice to his
Swamy is indeed introspective and valid to the corporate world of the 21st century. His
advice is as under:
 Swamy should run a diversified economy actively, efficiently, profitably and
prudently.
 Diversified economy should consist of productive forests, water reservoirs, mines,
productive activities, trade, markets, roads, ports, and storages.
 Efficient management means setting up of realistic targets and meeting targets
without using over zealous methods.
 Wealth lies in economic activities. Proper direction and guidance from Swamy
will ensure current prosperity and future gains. Inactivity of Swamy in economic
sphere will bring the kingdom close to destruction.
 Swamy must bear in his mind that a king with depleted treasury is a weak king
and the easiest target for a take over.
 Swamy should ensure enactment of prudent policies. Prudence should be based on
Dharma and Nyay that will ensure equal opportunity for all to earn a decent
living.
 Profitability should not only mean surplus over costs. It should also mean
provision of investment for future growth.
 Availability of water is important. It is practical to acquire a small tract of land
with flowing water than a large tract that is dry and would need substantial
investment to generate water.
 An ideal Swamy is the one who has the highest qualities of leadership, intellect,
energy and personal attributes.
 Swamy can reign only with the help of others. He should appoint not more than
four advisors and sufficient number of Mantris to look after the governance of the
State machinery. While limiting the span of control for the Swamy, Kautilya
warns against centralization of power in the hands of the Swamy by stating "one
wheel alone does not move a chariot".
 Swamy should take proper care in appointing advisors. He should have clarity in
terms of qualities an advisor should possess. Most important being practical
experience, thinking prowess, sound judgement and ability to differ while keeping
total devotion to the Swamy. (Kautilyam Arthaśāstram, ed.1909)
KNOWLEDGE:
Upon this issue, throughout Arthashstra, Kautilya makes some really thought-provoking
observations that seem to be a must to the leaders. Kautilya reminds his Swamy that
sound knowledge of complex human nature is essential in effective, efficient and honest
running of the State machinery. He warns of two undesirable attitudes of human nature,
Pramada, meaning excess and Alasya, meaning inactivity, to be watched for and avoided.
This is where, according to Kautilya, the leadership counts. Below are some of his pearls
of wisdom on knowledge:
 Small difference in ability can lead to enormous differences in results.
 Main aim throughout one's career is to identify, acquire and develop these
differences, which yield superior results.
 Knowledge is important. Knowledge is cumulative. Once it exists, it grows. Every
new piece of knowledge reveals connections with other areas of knowledge. Each
breakthrough in knowledge creates new opportunities that expand and multiply.
 Thinking is creative. You can create your world by the way you think. Situation
and people have the meaning you give them. When you change your thinking,
you change your life. To take control of your life, you must take control of your
mind. (Kautilyam Arthaśāstram, ed.1909)

JUSTICE:

Kautilya believed that for the prosperity of a state, the state must be devoid of internal
conflict and the King should be in control of the state. To maintain this internal peace, he
believed in a just and realistic rule of law. His definition of a state was one which had
power and wealth and hence he put property rights and protection of wealth as one of the
important themes in his jurisprudence. In fact he advocated that one could get rid of
corporeal punishment by paying off fines.

Kautilya also attaches great importance to human rights on how the invaded ruler and his
ministers should be treated. He shows a deep understanding of criminal justice and war
justice. Surprisingly, for a harsh and realist man like Kautilya he shows mercy towards
the people defeated in a war and recommends humanity and justice towards them. He
advocates that defeated king shall be treated with respect and he should be made an ally
and advices that the key people advising the defeated king should be eliminated through a
silent war.

Kautilya believes that law should be in the hands of the King and punishments need to be
awarded to those who are guilty so that King can protect himself from the social unrest
and unhappiness. He believes that punishment is a means to an end and it needs to
prevent the commission of the crime. Kautilya also was a reformer where he though
punishments could reform a person and hence a society. His devotion to social structure
was so strong that he thinks that Brahmins (Brekke, 2004) need to be punished less by
only exiling him and not to torture him. This unequal social justice was in itself injustice
but so was his belief.

He attaches great importance to dandaniti (Boesche, 2002) which includes protecting

property, acquiring property, augmenting them and distributing them. He thinks that
justice is an important constituent of sovereignty and it needs to be preserved by the State
and the ultimate responsibility lies with the King.
DIPLOMACY:
Kautilya believed that nations acted in their political, economic and military self-interest.
He thought that foreign policy or diplomacy will be practiced as long as the sell-interest
of the state is served because every state acts in a way to maximize the power and self
interest. He thought that the world was in such a state that a kingdom was either at war or
was preparing for a war and diplomacy was yet another weapon used in this constant
warfare. He believed that diplomacy is a series of actions taken by a kingdom such that it
gains strength and eventually conquers the nation with which diplomatic ties were
created.

He also believed that treaties should be made in such a way that King benefits and serves
the self-interest of the Kingdom. He did talk about violating treaties and creating
dissension between states so that his kingdom might benefit which directly is similar to
Bismarck’s strategies of treaties. In fact Kautilya can be compared to Bismarck that both
of them though of extremely complex network of treaties and relationships without any
successor in either case.

Kautilya described three types of political system namely rule making, rule application
and rule adjudication and has been recognized for his contributions to bringing diplomacy
at the helm of state’s affairs. In his words he defines diplomacy as, “A King who
understands the true implication of diplomacy conquers the whole world” (Spegele,
1987). To understand his concept of diplomacy it is important to understand his idea of
six types of diplomacy:

Six forms of Diplomacy

Kautilya elaborates on strategies for not only the strong king and the aggressor but also
explains the strategies a weak king should follow to defend himself and protect the state.
His forms of diplomacy also depends on the type of the king whether the policy is
directed toward the superior, inferior or equal (Spegele, 1987). The six types of foreign
policy that he advocates are:

1. Sandhi: This means accommodation, which means that kings seek to accommodate the
each other and does not resolve to hostile means. These Sandhis could be temporary or
permanent and it depends on the environment and relative powers of the kings. The
various sub-forms in this sandhi have been practiced by statesmen later. Bismarck had
used Karmasandhi with Austria and now Britain’s foreign policy has been to maintain
Anavasitasandhi with the United States.
2. Vigraha: This means hostility shown to neighbor or a state. Kautilya strongly believed
that the states are always at war and seek power hence it is necessary to have hostile
foreign policy towards few states which are either equal in power or subordinate in
power.

3. Asana: This means indifference and he chooses this policy for states which are neutral
in his mandala concept of nations. He also believes that an indifferent foreign policy
works well in the case of equal power. This idea seems obsolete as we have seen in case
of equal powers in history, there has been always tension which either led to a war or an
alliance. Germany viewed Britain as an equal power and could not be indifferent neither
could US be indifferent to Russia during the cold war.

4. Dvaidhibhava: This means double policy which was very well practiced by Bismarck.
Kautilya advocates this foreign policy for states which are superior militarily. Kissinger
followed this strategy where he made alliance with China such that at no time Russia and
China could become closer in ties than US and China. Kautilya advocated the same
concept within his Mandala framework.

5. Samsarya: This policy of protection is followed where a stronger state intervenes and
shelters a weak state. Kautilya advocates this policy when a stronger state needs a shield
to protect itself from an equal power it is good to use this policy of protection for a third
state and use this alliance to defend against the potential enemy. In one sense the
colonization was followed where European powers started controlling weak nations in
Africa and Asia and thus strengthening their position against one another.

6. Yana: This policy is to attack. Kautilya does mention that peace and stability in a state
makes the state even powerful but never shies away from attacking the weak and unjust
king. He thinks that an unjust king keeps the society unhappy which makes that state a
potential target as it is weak due to social unrest. Who knows may George W. Bush read
Kautilya before pursuing the Yana policy on Iraq! (Kautilyam Arthaśāstram, ed.1909)

Thus Kautilya’s external policy was formed by his strong belief in the able leadership and
the state’s continuous thirst for power and wealth.

ESSENCE OF LEADERSHIP:

The essence of leadership, he stresses, lies in its acceptance by the subjects. He therefore,
advises the Swamy never to forget the two pillars of the art of governance: Nyay, the
justice and Dharma, the ethics. He also decries autocratic behaviour as a leader is visible
and people follow the leader. Hence he advises the Swamy to introspect and to identify
his atma doshas, i.e. deficiencies to improve or develop himself. He further advises his
Swamy to study deficiencies of his cabinet members and take steps to improve upon
them. He states that Mantris could be incompetent, Senapati could be over ambitious,
Purohit may not consider the present day practices or traditions while enacting laws or
justice, which might lead to injustice (Gupta, 1987). As regards Yuvaraj, he advises
specific training to prepare him for the eventual succession. He states that the Yuvaraj
should be trained in three specific areas: Arthashastra (economic administration),
Nitishastra (foreign affairs) and Dandaniti (political science). The Arthashastra holds
some pearls for leadership which are presented below:
 A great leader shows ability to make decision and act boldly in the face of
setbacks and adversity.
 Power goes to the person who uses it most effectively.
 Leaders are sensitive to and are aware of the needs, feelings and motivation of
those they lead.
 Foundation of leadership consists of honesty, truthfulness and straight dealing.
 Leaders develop ability to predict and anticipate the future.
 Self-discipline is the most important personal quality of a leader.

CONCLUSION:

Arthashstra, written in the 4th century before Christ, is a work whose relevance has not
faded even after 24 centuries have gone by and it deserves a continuing importance as its
writer Acharya Chanakya or Kautilya was not only a statesman of one of a kind in the
east especially in India but also was one of the best diplomat ever born. Due to this
reason, his magnum-opus has good traits of leadership elements which are also the
evidence of the intellectual capital India possessed in its glorious past. Thus an effective
leadership is but our own traditions of the past. Though looking at from today’s
perspective, one can definitely say that his blind subordination to the social structure is
unacceptable as the current social structure is dynamic and driven by both political and
economic forces, yet his thoughts on management and diplomacy is still commendable
that can potentially shape the figure of an effective leader of all times.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. E. V. Walter, “Power and Violence”, The American Political Science Review,

Vol. 58, No. 2 (Jun. 1964), pp. 350-360.

2. Roger Boesche, “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient

India”, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, (January 2003), pp 9-38

3. Ritu Kohli, “Kautilya’s Political Theory – Yogakshema: The Concept of Welfare

State”, 1995, Deep and Deep Publications, ISBN 81-7100-802-x

4. Kenneth G.Zysk, “Kautilya’s Arthshastra; A Comparative Study”, Journal of the

American Oriental Society, Vol. 107, No. 4 (Oct – Dec 1987), pp 838-839

5. Torkel Brekke, “Weilding the Rod Punishment – War and Violence in the Politcal
Science of Kautilya, Journal of Military Ethics, Vol 3, No. 1 (2004), pp 40-52

6. Roger Boesche, “Moderate Machiavelli? Contrasting The Prince with Arthshastra

of Kautilya, Critical Horizons, 2002, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p253, 24p
7. Roger D. Spegele, “Three forms of Political Realism”, Political Studies, Vol. 35
(1987), pp 189-210

8. Kauṭiliyam Arthaśāstram. The Arthasastra of Kautilya. Ed. by R. Shama Sastri,

Mysore Printed at the Government Branch Press, 1909. Xxi, 429, 6 p. 23 cm

9. Bharati Mukherjee, “Kautilya’s Concept of Diplomacy”, August 1976, Minerva

Associates Publications, Calcutta, India. ISBN: O-88386-504-1

10. V.K.Gupta, “Kautilyan Jurisprudence”, B.D Gupta Publishers, 1987.