Chanakya – Where is he when India Needs him?

By: Bipin Shah

Chanakaya and Chandra Gupta Portrayal

1
Chanakya -The Legend
His Sanskrit-Prakrit name was Canaka. Those days the letter “H” was absent in writing but
was pronounced Chanakya. The legend says that he was the Brahmin Son of Canak, with
same name as his father and belonged to “Kautiliya” gotra. The use of Gotra as his last name,
simply defined the Aryan rules of exogamy or endogamy marriage system prevalent in the
society. Most of the Brahmin gotra are derived from Septa Rishi or seven Rishi and Kautiliya is
one of that.

He may have been called Vishnugupta in his later age. All the top government officials and
king sanctioned all the religions to maintain secularity and peace in a multiethnic, multi
religious society. India is a complex nation with full spectrum of ethnic diversity unseen in
any part of the world. This was going on before Vedic people arrived and continued after
Vedic people were settled. Since arrival of Vedic tribes, the ethnic diversity has increased
further with the infusion of new arrivals as a result of conquest and migration from Central
Asia. The DNA profile of Indians serves as a testimonial to the above statement.

Vishnugupta probably was his official name when he assumed the administrative role, one
can conclude that he was Vishnu worshipper and he designed the elaborate intelligence
agencies called “Gupti” to keep all vassals under control and ensure the tax revenue is
collected and absolute control is maintained by the empire.

The legend suggests that his birth place was in or near Patliputra, Magadh (modern Patna,
Bihar), and he later moved to Taxila for studying and teaching. Taxila was the famous ancient
Vedic university located in eastern end of Gandhara province of India (now part of Pakistan).
At a very early age, the young Chanakya started studying Vedas, Ayurveda and Astrology and
other disciplines. He emerged as a brilliant tactician and organizer, besides his scholastic
achievement. He was the master of state crafts and learned to play one against another to
achieve his objective. We now call that technique as a “balance of power” in the world
geopolitics.

Chanakya turned out to be an ace in building alliances, turning tables against powerful
enemies that otherwise cannot be militarily defeated. He never budged to pressure tactics by
the ruthless administrators of the kings.

According to Jaina folklore, Chanakya discovered an orphan boy in Lahore who displayed his
bravery. He was fatherless so he brought him from his mother and educated him. He
groomed him and taught him everything possibly he can. In a way, he adopted him as his son.
His name was Chandra Gupta or sandracotus as per Alexander’s historians- Arrian, Ptolemy
and others. We don’t have sufficient details on Chandra Gupta’s origin other than what most
experts considered to be from Pipalivahan of modern Bihar. There is an alternate theory that
places him near river west of Sindus River belonging to Persian origin to an Armenian origin in

2
central Asia. In all these places, a Mauri clan had an established colony. There are no records
to establish the authenticity except similar sounding names. There is also the dispute that is
this the Chandra Gupta Alexander encountered or there was the one from Gupta dynasty?
However, most agree that it was not Gupta dynasty of 4th century AD as it was “brahminical”
in nature vs. Maurya who were non-Brahminical in nature.

Chanakya after studying religion and politics, turned his attention to economics, which
became his lifelong subject of his choice in managing empire’s economy. His key economic
principles are found in his work “Arathshastra.”

"Nitishastra", is another of his work that established social ethics and codes of behavior. This
included as a treatise to what is the best way to live the ethical and the ideal way of life. This
shows his knowledge of understanding the practicality of the Indian way of life. In today’s
term, we can equate him to be the Professor (acharya) of Economics, social and political
science at the Takshasila University.

When Chandra Gupta ascended to the Magadh throne, he assumed the position as a Prime
Minister of the Emperor Chandragupta Maurya and key advisor. He is regarded as one of the
earliest known political thinkers, economists and king-makers.

As per his legend, he was insulted by last Nanda King in an open court and from there on he
worked tirelessly to get rid of the tyrant Nanda king.

His Vision for India:

He was the man to envision the first Indian empire by unification of then numerous kingdoms
in the Indian sub-continent and provide the impetus to fights against the foreign dominance
who he often labeled them as a “Mlechha invaders”. As a brilliant strategist he did not mind
to learn from his erstwhile enemies so on one hand he encourage Chandra Gupta to befriend
Alexander the Great and learn as much as he can of his military genius and battle tactics and
on the other hand he planned his moves how to drive him out of the subcontinent. He used
the acquired knowledge from Greek and access of their weaponries while building the
“coalition of willing” allies to finally topple Nanda king who was at that time considered to be
the mightiest ruler of India and difficult to topple.

Chanakya is perhaps less well known outside India compared to other social and political
sophists of the world like Confucius and Machiavelli. His foresight and wide knowledge
coupled with politics of expediency helped found the mighty Mauryan Empire in India. He
compiled his political ideas into the 'Arathshastra', one of the world's earliest treatises on
political thoughts and social orders. His ideas remain popular to this day in India. Jawaharlal
Nehru's wrote in his book “Discovery of India: “Chanakya has been called the Indian

3
Machiavelli”. There are three works that are attributed to Chanakya: Arathshastra,
Nitishastra and Chanakya Niti.

Arathshastra means literally 'the Science of Material Gain' in Sanskrit. It is arguably the first
systematic book on economics ever written in the world. It discusses monetary and fiscal
policies, welfare, international relations, and war strategies in details. Many of his “Nitis” or
policies have been compiled under the book title Chanakya “Nitis”. Nitishastra is a treatise on
the ideal way of life, and shows Chanakya's in depth study of the Indian way of life.

Adventure of Chandra Gupta under guidance of Chanakya:

Chanakya took Chandra Gupta to Taxila and trained him as a warrior. It is believed that he
first got recruited in to Darius’s army and then was assigned to Bactrian satrapy under Bessus
and he probable fought against Alexander in central Asia. When sensing the oncoming defeat
against the powerful Macedonians, he bit the hasty retreat with Bessus and Alexander’s army
on his tail. Darius followed the similar route and try to catch up with Bessus party. Here, you
can hypothesize the genius behind this was probably Chanakya who may have convinced
Bessus and Chandra Gupta to leave the battle field in the middle of fight at a critical moment
and ensuring that Chandra Gupta follows up this move. Bessus was the blood relative of King
Darius but had lots of ambitions. Someone encouraged Bessus to kill Darius in the hope of
being the king of Persia. Who was that person remains the mystery. In a shrewd move,
Chandra Gupta suddenly changed the sides by capturing and handing over Bessus to pursuing
Alexander. He made subsequent moves by leading and assisting Alexander for the capture of
Sogdiana to earn his complete trust.

Alexander the Great by Lewis van Cummings quotes Arrian on SasiGupta: “When Alexander
was in Sogdiana, Sisicottus met Alexander and presented himself as a renegade Indian
chieftain named “Sisicottus” (“Sasi” also means “Chandra” in Indian translation), he is
interpreted as none other than Chandra Gupta. Arrian says that this “Sisicottus” was the
commander of Bessus, the satrap of Bactria. When the start of the ill fated pretender set,
Sisicottus threw his lots with Alexander.” This also raises the question on ancient Indian
geography and its outreach. What Chandra Gupta was doing in Sogdiana?

Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his book on Alexander quoting early Greek historian states that
states that “Sisicottus who had obtained the favor of Alexander by his faithful and intelligent
assistance was made a viceroy of a district.” The district is not identified but suspected to be
Northern sindh.

George Turnour quoting various Greek and Roman historians namely Quintus Curtius who
used Megasthenes Indica as his source described Chandra Gupta as “Sandracotus”.

4
Arrian echoes the same statement. “Megasthenes assures us he visited the court of
“Sandrocottus”, the king of India frequently-by Arrian”. He goes on to say that describes the
Magadha.

“At the confluence of Ganges and other river is situated Palibothra, it is the capital city of
Prasii, the people superior to others. The king beside his birth name and appellant from the
city was called Sandrocottus.-by Diodorus Siculus”.

In Chanakya's eyes, foreign rule was a poison to be dealt with. It was his belief that alien
rulers would exploit loot and impoverishes the country. It is said Chanakya also met
Alexander in Taxila in meeting with Ambhi (Abhisare) and Chanakya being very outspoken, he
managed to provoke Alexander. When he talked boldly and defiantly, Alexander was enraged
and ordered his arrest. Chanakya with the help of Chandragupta and Ambhi somehow
managed to get out of that.

After this episode, the Chandragupta’s education was over, and Chanakya thought that their
first task should, be to drive out the Greeks. The first effort was to join Persian army under
Bessus and then eliminating enemies. Then the plan can be implemented to dethrone Nanda.
Nandas was called “Nandurus” by Indian and “Xandramus” by Greek based on phonetics and
pronunciation. The Troops were amassed. The Details are not available as to how exactly
Chanakya and Chandragupta fought against the foreign enemies and Nanda except possible
double crossing and playing one against another.

Porus and Alexander Battle Depiction

5
Freedom from the Greeks:
The source of strength for Chandragupta and his army was the strategies and brilliant mind of
Chanakya. In that war of independence for Northern India, Chandragupta was the physical
instrument, while its thinking brain was Chanakya.

In the primary task of eliminating the Greek Satraps after Alexander’s departure, one Greek
Satrap by name Nicossar was killed even when Alexander was alive, and another, Philip, was
killed after his death. After Alexander's death in Babylon, all his Satraps were either killed or
dislodged, one by one who were posted in and around the Indian territories except Bactria.

Alexander's empire was divided among his lieutenants in 321 B.C. No areas east of the Indus
– (Sindhu) under Greek control were ever mentioned by Greek or Roman historians.

The immediate western area of Sindhu River under Persian control was up for the grab. The
dislodging and death of Greek satraps convinced the Greeks themselves this region once help
by Darius had gone out of their rule and they lost whatever control Achemenians exercised in
Aria, Sogdiana and Gandhara. These are the chronology of events that took place when
Alexander went back to Babylonia after leaving India and Afghanistan.

1. In 321 BC: After the death of Taxiles (Alexander's Governor) in Taxila, with the help of King
Porus, Chandragupta (or Sandrocottus) established his empire in modern Punjab (in North
Pakistan). Porus becomes the key ally in his future battle for Patliputra.

2. In 320 BC: Chandragupta defeated Magadha Empire under Nanda Dynasty and established
himself as an Emperor of Magadha.

3. In 316 BC: Chandragupta captured modern Sindh (in South Pakistan) from Greek Governor
Peithon that will be west of Sindhu under Persian control.

4. In 305 BC: Chandragupta defeated Seleucus and got Arachosia and Paropamisadae
(modern Southern and eastern Afghanistan).

5. In 317 BC and 316 BC he defeated the Greek rulers of the Punjab and started to reconquer
the territories of North Western India. The Punjab was ruled by the Greek satrap Eudemus
until 316 BC.

6
Chanakya's fight against the Nanda king was not merely because of personal insult and
humiliation but also with a desire to free the people from unbridled taxation and the
oppression. But dethroning the Nanda king was not an easy task. The Nanda king had
conquered several kingdoms and built a vast empire. He had a powerful army.

Unfortunately, we have no clear cut idea as to how the defeat of Nanda was accomplished in
details. He and Chandra Gupta built the “coalition of willing allies” but Chanakya has to have
some inside help and that detail is not available.

Chanakya with his cleverness had earlier won the friendship of King Parvataka (suspected to
be either Porus or king controlling the powerful tribes of the Himalayan Mountain. This
Parvataka as mentioned in Jaina text and his brother Vairochaka and son Malayaketu came
with their armies to help them. This was not considered sufficient by Chanakya. He went step
further infiltrated the inside ranks of Nanda kings and using that information, he dethroned
him with his allies.

One of the most able administrator Nandas king had was Amatya (Minister) Rakshasa.
Chanakya needed him to stay on for a while so all the knowledge of keeping the empire
together can be learned and accomplished. However, Amatya Rakshasas was very loyal to
Nanda and if not watched he can dislodge Chandragupta.

Chanakya devised a scheme to keep Rakshasas as minister while protecting Chandra Gupta
Chanakya's thought appears at first sight very strange to Chandra Gupta. Amatya was totally
loyal to the Nandas and very smart. Ultimately He gets caught by Chanakya. This has become
a theme of a famous drama titled "Mudra Rakshasa" written by Vishakha- dutta. All that this
literary work expounds, cannot be accepted as history, however it gives some valuable clues
for reconstructing the history.

This drama depicts the portrayal of the struggle between the two brilliant statesmen of India,
each of them were an intellectual giants of India in their time .Amatya Rakshasa tried in many
ways to have Chandragupta killed but never succeeded. Mudraraksasa cites few instances
and gives a long account on how things got resolved.

Chanakya’s familiarity with Medicine and the use of Poison:

According to the Jaina legend, while Chanakya served as the Prime Minister of Chandragupta
Maurya, he started adding small amounts of poison in Chandragupta's food so that he would
develop the immunity. In those days, the use of poison was frequently employed to make a

7
regime change. His objective was to make Chandra Gupta develop the necessary immunities
against the poison in case his food was poisoned.

As the legend goes, one day the queen of Chandra Gupta, Durdha, shared the food with the
Emperor Chandra Gupta, while she was pregnant. Since she was not used to eating poisoned
food, she died. Chanakya decided that the baby should not die; hence he cut open the belly
of the queen and took out the baby. A dark patch in forehead (“Bindu” in Sanskrit) was
believed to be created from the poison that had passed to the baby's head, and hence
Chanakya named him Bindusara. Bindusara would go on to become a great king and to
extend his father’s empire. This is a legend that obviously looks like cooked up in explaining
the mole or birthmark on the boy. The folklores are always important as they bring out the
other dimension which was the use of small amount of poison to develop the immunity in the
body and it is a true fact and it is used today to develop antidote to many poisonous bites.

The use and discovery of the poison in the ancient world were practiced as far as 4000 BC and
there was no exclusivity of the knowledge to any particular civilization. “Shushruta Samhita”,
a Sanskrit text on medicines and surgery clearly identified local native plants and minerals
that have various degrees of poisonous properties to human nervous systems. All poison
attacks the nervous system causing the human death. This text was exported to various
surrounding areas of India. One translation in Arabic as Kitab-i-Susrud was transcribed as late
in the 8th century AD.

There are many plants such as “Strychnos toxifera”, minerals such as “Arsenics” and fish such
as stonefish, lionfish, scorpion fish, stargazer and Toda fish and animals such as snakes and
spiders that contain various degree of poison. The most common plants identified in India
that are identified below are:

Capparids/Capparidaceae,Mignonettes/Resedaceae,Violets/Violaceae,Rockroses/Cochlosper
maceae,Bixads/Bixaceae,Flacourtiads/Flacourtiaceae,Pittosporads/Pittosporaceae,Milkworts
/Polygalaceae,Seaheaths/Frankeniaceae,Purslanes/Portulacaceae,Tamarisks/Tamaricaceae,
Composites/Compositae,Flaxworts/Linaceae,Labiates/Labiatae,Dammers/Dipterocarpaceae,
Guttifers/Guttiferae,Silkcottons/Bombacaceae,Teas/Ternstroemiaceae,Tutsans/Hypericaceae
,Water peppers/Elatinaceae,Mallowworts/Malvaceae,Lindenblooms/Tiliaceae,Sterculiads/
Sterculiaceae.

It was not common that “very slow doses” of poison was administered by a trusted court
physician to the rulers in a routine but careful manner to develop the immunity against the
poison that modern medicine called it antidote. Archeologists have found that American
Indians like many ancient civilization poisoned the dart of the arrow that was very lethal
using number of native herbal remedies. So, the poison was considered as legitimate
weapons of the war in ancient time and modern time during the cold war. The spies of many
western and eastern bloc countries met their fate due to this technique of death including
recent use of nuclear material poisoning, also called uranium poisoning.
8
Mithradates VI, king of Pontus was an expert in this art. He also became a pioneer in
developing antidote probably learning through ancient Persian and Indian texts. Mithradates
VI was paranoid about being assassinated by the poison that he employed the techniques of
Achemenians by employing the food testers. The middle age Vatican pope Alexander did the
same things. The mixing of poison with the food was the best method of assassinating the
political opponents within the court, family or any succession struggle.

Pliny, the elder described over 700 species of plants carrying different degree of toxicity of
poison. Mithradates VI’s antidote was named “Mithradatium” by Romans. As recent as early
1th century AD, the Muslim ruler of Gujarat, Mohammed Begda slowly administered the
poison to himself to develop the immunity. It was said ‘Any insects hovering over his head
met its death up on biting him”.

Hemachandra, 11th century Jaina Acharya and Sanskrit scholar who transcribed many old
Sanskrit texts of Jaina that is part of modern “Agam texts” of Gujarati Jaina community
describes in his book “The lives of Jaina Elders”, his understanding of Chanakya, and the
minister of Chandra Gupta Maurya. The use and discovery of the poison in the ancient world
were practiced as far as 4000 BC and there was no exclusivity of the knowledge to any
particular civilization.

As far as, the use of the poison was common in ancient world for “high value targets” by
opponents? The answer is us, all the time.

How Alexander The Great Died?

To this date, this remains an important mystery of the young warrior. Did he die by induction
of Poisson by deadly arrow that nearly paralyzed him? Or he dies of deadly mosquitoes
induced malaria in swamps of Indus River? Or as some historian claims that he was given the
poison prepared by an insider?

April Holloway, wrote “Alexander, the Great died after 12 days of agonizing pain. She
dismisses the possibility of him having died of Malaria, typhoid or alcoholic poisoning, as the
symptoms do not coincide with the manner of his death. But, she postulates, “There is a
possibility that he may have died from drinking wine made from a poisonous plant.
In reaching her conclusions, she writes the following, New research conducted by Dr Leo
Schep from the National Poisons Centre in New Zealand suggests that Alexander died from
drinking poisonous wine from an innocuous-looking plant that, when fermented, is incredibly
deadly.” One can infer from this, how useful the knowledge was of Botanic variety of various
9
plants in ancient India and how man like Chanakya would have a special interest in this
knowledge.

Dr Schep, who has been researching the toxicological evidence for a decade, said some of the
other poisoning theories - including arsenic and strychnine - were not plausible as death
would have come far too fast, not over 12 days as the records suggest. The same applies to
other poisons such as hemlock, aconite, wormwood, henbane and autumn crocus.

However, Dr Schep’s research, co-authored by Otago University classics expert Dr Pat

Wheatley and published in the medical journal Clinical Toxicology, found the most plausible
culprit was Veratrum album, known as white hellebore. The white-flowered plant, which can
be fermented into a poisonous wine, was well-known in the ancient word as an herbal
treatment.

Dr Schep's theory was that Veratrum album could have been fermented as a wine that was
given to the leader. It would have tasted 'very bitter' but it could have been sweetened - and
Alexander was likely to have been very drunk at the banquet. The symptoms caused by
consuming the plant also fit with the description of what Alexander experienced over the 12
days before he died.

Chanakya’s knowledge of the poison can be extremely useful, if he wanted to get rid of
foreigner. There is a good chance that he may have done that indirectly or covertly sensing
the rebellion among Greek soldiers about returning home but there is no direct evidence
except the hints dropped in the Sanskrit drama Mudraraksasa.

Up on his death, he divided his empire among his key commanders. Alexander had settled
some Greeks wherever he conquered. But they did not wish to stay there and wanted to
return to Greece. Alexander had divided the realms he conquered near India and had
appointed 'Satraps' to rule them. Some of them were Greeks and some were Indians. The
Greeks always lived in the fear of mutinies and murders. As soon as Alexander left a Satrap in
charge of a province could face local rebellion. The Satraps often got murdered. Satrap Philip,
who was very able and experienced, was thus killed. Alexander who was at a distant place
could not do anything.

The Indian Satraps were getting frustrated. They were only waiting for the proper time to
rebel and become free. After Alexander went out of India and died suddenly in distant
Babylon in 323 B.C., all his Satraps declared themselves independent.

10
But even this seemingly impossible work was made possible because of Chanakya's expertise.
Chanakya and Chandragupta toured in different areas after Alexander’s return to Babylon.
They gathered soldiers mainly from the mercenary communities. Chanakya felt that this was
not enough. He befriended a king by name Parvataka, or Parvetesha of the Himalayan region
and secured his help for Chandragupta. Thus Chandragupta could get the support of the
strong Himalayan soldiers. Did Chanakya or Chandra Gupta or anyone else have to do with
poisoning of Alexander? We do not know for sure. Does arrow he took near his chest could
have been lethal? Most probably it was not as per the experts.

Jaina Outlook of Mauryan kings:

Jaina historians considered both Chandra Gupta Maurya and Chanakya as Jaina laymen. The
historical evidence points to the conclusion that they respected all the religions. Both of the
above personalities respected all the major religious traditions of India as a part of well
planned political strategy of Chanakya and also born out of the “political necessity”.

Chanakya was more of followers of “Vishnu” or “Krishna’ and Chandra Gupta Maurya
supported all the Shramanic religion including shaivism. They may have been earlier follower
of Zaruashtra. Jaina historians clearly assign much higher status to Bindusara, who is
assumed to be Indo-Greek origin and was known as “Amitradate” or “Amitrochates”;
however, he was the follower of allied sect of Ajivikas. But, Jaina has no problems claiming
anyone who is friendlier towards them including Emperor Akbar and Mahmud Begda of
Gujarat. This is not a criticism but indicated the practical wisdom and teaching of Mahavira
that is “Live and Let live”.

11
According to the legend, when Bindusara became a youth, Chandragupta gave up the throne
and followed the Jain saint Bhadrabahu (not the Kevlin”) to present day Karnataka and
settled in a place known as “Shravan Belgola”. During his time, the statue of Bahubali did not
exist but the hilly terrain caves housing Jain monks existed. He lived as an ascetic for some
years and died of voluntary starvation called “Samsara”.

Jaina legends tell us that Chanakya stayed as the Prime Minister of Bindusara. Bindusara also
had a minister named Subandhu who did not like Chanakya. One day he told Bindusara that
Chanakya was responsible for the murder of his mother. Bindusara asked the nurses who
confirmed this story and he became very angry with Chanakya. It is said that Chanakya, on
hearing that the Emperor was angry with him, thought that anyway he was at the end of his
life. He donated all his wealth to the poor, widows and orphans and sat on a dung heap,
prepared to die by total abstinence from food and drink.

Bindusara meanwhile heard the full story of his birth from the nurses and rushed to beg
forgiveness of Chanakya. But Chanakya would not relent. Bindusara went back and vent his
fury on Subandhu, who asked for time to beg for forgiveness from Chanakya!

Subandhu, who still hated Chanakya, wanted to make sure that Chanakya did not return to
the city. So he arranged for a ceremony of respect, but unnoticed by anyone, slipped a
smoldering charcoal ember inside the dung heap. Aided by the wind, the dung heap swiftly
caught fire, and the man behind the Mauryan Empire and the author of Arathshastra was
burned to death. This event is recorded by ancient Jaina historians; however such stories
cannot be authenticated. However, the approximate death of Chanakya was 283 BC and his
birth is reported as 370 BC.

Chanakya as an Economist and a Statesman:

His main economic philosophy was "A debt should be paid off till the last penny”. In modern
world, we call that as “Balancing the Budget”. He believed that an enemy should be
destroyed without a trace. American drone strike just does that without leaving any forensic
evidence. He seemed to have lived - and died - by his philosophy. It has also emphasized the
need for original and path breaking legal research to create new legal knowledge and ideas
that will help meet these new challenges in a manner responsive to the needs of the country
and ideals and goals. This was spelled out by Thomas Jefferson that I echoed in my article on
constitutional reform that should meet the needs of the people.

Without any doubt, this man was visionary and some of his words and thinking are so
applicable in today’s statecraft. The statement below applies to the person who hoards
monies for no good since they cannot take that with them when they die.

12
 His statement in present context hoarding of monies in off shore accounts

Much of our knowledge about state policy under the Maurya comes from the Arathshastra
written by his other name Kautiliya. Though it was written at the end of the fourth century
BC, it appears to have been rediscovered only in 1905 AD, after centuries of obscurity. So,
naturally the question arises of its authenticity and its originality. It can be safely assumed
that the treatise in its present form is probably rewritten from his original work and passed
on to subsequent generation, consistent with India’s oral tradition. The book, written in
Sanskrit, discusses theories and principles of governing a state and describes the conditions
that existed in his time. It may not be the exact account of the Mauryan administration.

The title, Arathshastra means "the Science of Material Gain or polity”, and it does not leave
any doubts about its intended purpose. Arathshastra remains unique in all of Indian literature
because of its total absence of lengthy reasoning or its unabashed advocacy of real politic. It
reflects the politics of his time when India was ruled by corrupt administration of Nanda and
was almost invaded by Macedonians. His work advocates certain things that are not
considered legal or ethical in today’s civil society. The items of the contention are the issue of
the domestic espionage and the liberal use of provocative agents against the rogue elements
who are working against state’s interest at home. The Murder and false accusations were to
be utilized by a king's secret agents without any thoughts to morals, laws or ethics. There are
chapters for kings to help them keep in check the premature ambitions of their princes, and
likewise chapters intended to help princes to thwart their fathers' domineering autocracy.

His policy when used in modern setting will invoke the ire of human right organization,
however it is interesting when modern society faces the threat of domestic or state
sponsored terrorism with the threat of insurgency from within. Chanakya thoughts still lead
the way to provide guidance to state security.

13
Chanakya’s social ethics and responsibilities of the ruler and citizens:

Chanakya had also written his book on social ethics of the state called ‘Chanakyaniti’. Most of
his views were so farsighted that they appeared to be prophesies. Talking on diverse subjects
such as corruption, he commented very rightly, "It’s just as difficult to detect an official’s
dishonesty as it is to discover how much water is drunk by the swimming fish".

Chanakya was a man of infinite wisdom and master strategist but displays certain degree of
ethics against injustice and disorders. Through, his Nitishastra, that taught ideal way of living
for every individual of the society. He looked at the country like a person surrounded by
ethics and corruptions. He worked at the total removal of problems from its roots. In his
mind, the re-appearance of the problem shows the removal is not permanent so it grows
again from the root.

His contribution in the field of the foreign policy in the present day world is very helpful and
applicable. Chanakya’s core principles are still taught in the areas of national defense,
strategy formation and foreign relations.

14
Courtesy by Amritraj below:

As a person, Chanakya has been described many things: As a saint, As a State’s Guardian, As a
‘ruthless administrator’, As the ‘king maker’, As a devoted nationalist, As a selfless ascetic
and As a person devoid of all morals. He certainly was a controversial but his good intention
cannot be doubted. All the works attributed to him namely, ‘Arathshastra’, ‘Nitishastra’ and
‘Chanakyaniti’ were unique because of their rational approach and an unabashed advocacy of
real politic.

15
This great statesman and administrator have been often compared to Machiavelli by
historians. He has been criticized for his ruthlessness and trickery and praised for his
profound political wisdom.

Chanakya’s Vision for India:

Chanakya envisioned of India as a nation when examined thoroughly through all his work is
still very relevant today. He wanted India to be the front runner in every sphere of being as
measured by the current United Nation independent survey team and this will include in the
field of Gross Domestic National Product (economic), Unemployment and Growth rate where
everyone pays the fair share of the taxes, so social benefits can be distributed to wide
segment of the society (Social development). The political class should be governed by code
of ethics and morality. The corruption would be punishable by death (Justice).

Chanakya believed in strong national defense and he will root out the enemies from its roots
where ever he found them. His various works depicts in many ways the dream of young India-
emerging youth and growing middle class. Every reader would agree with him and this author
who is writing this article that we need another Chanakya for 21st century. The Society is a

16
complex and dynamic system that is changing constantly, he believed in leaving those people
behind who say “no to the change”. Broadly speaking, Chanakya dreamt of a country
reaching the high levels of development in terms of social and economic development:

1. A self sufficient economy which is not dependent on foreign aids or unfavorable

foreign trade balance.

2. An egalitarian society where there are equal opportunities for all, but not
necessarily equal income as the reward system takes care of the incentive and
motivation to work harder.

3. Establishment of new settlement for the development of resources. He also

advocated the development of the already conquered territories. His imperialistic
views can be interpreted in today’s context “As the development of natural and
manmade resources are needed for income generation, however it is necessary to
develop the infrastructure that will facilitate processing of resources that can be
brought to the market places for conversion and consumption.”

4. According to Chanakya, the efficient management of land is essential for the

development of resources. It is essential that the state keeps an eye on the occupation
of excess land by the landlords and unauthorized use of land. Presently, India has the
laws on the book to take care of that only thing needed is the implementation.

5. The state should take care of agriculture at all times. Government machinery should
be directed towards the implementation of projects aimed at supporting and
nurturing the process so there is enough foods on the nation’s table. The various
processes beginning from sowing of seeds to harvest should be supported. This
probably applies to his time but valid also today to avoid scarcity, famine and food
inflation.

6. The nation should envisage constructing forts and cities. These complexes would
protect the country from invasions and provide internal security. The cities would act
as giant markets increasing the revenue of the state. This is somewhat valid today in
terms of infrastructure.

7. Internal trade was more important to Chanakya than external trade. At each point
of the entry of goods, a minimal amount of tax should be collected. The state should
collect taxes at a bare minimum level, so that there is no chance of tax evasion. This is
a very important point. The lower taxes boost the employment and productivities.
China who relied on export driven growth and one child policy of Mao’s era have
created unequal demographic meaning more people in older retirement age with
lower number of productive young people to support the economic output. India on
the other hand has a thriving middle class with rising young population. However, in
17
 today’s globalization, the international trade if not more important is equally
important.

8. The Laws of the state should be applied equally, irrespective of the person who is
involved in the case. Destitute women should be protected by the society because
they are the result of social exploitation and the uncouth behavior of men. This is true
statement even today.

9. The Security of the citizens at peace time is very important because state is the only
savior of the men and women who get affected only because of the negligence of the
state. Antisocial elements should be kept under check along with the spies who may
enter the country at any time. Use the Mumbai and parliament attacks as a lesson
from the Chanakya. Also unchecked attacks on the women.

10. Chanakya envisioned a society that is not entirely materialistic. He believed in the
Spiritual development that is essential for the inner strength and character of the
individual.

However, Chanakya admits that it is just as difficult to detect an official's dishonesty

as it is to discover how much water is drunk by the swimming fish. (Read Kejriwal)

His work on “Arathshastra" and "Nitishastra", Chanakya become a master visionary of India
and India’s one billion people are crying out and saying where is Chanakya when we need
him today? "The secret task of a king is to strive for the welfare of his people incessantly. The
administration of the kingdom is his religious duty. His greatest gift would be to treat all of us
as his equals."

Chanakya said "The happiness of the commoners is the happiness of the king (Ruler). Their
welfare is his welfare. A king (Ruler) should never think of his selfish interest or
aggrandizement." However, his words and thinking are 2300 years old; it is true today and
will be true tomorrow. He is the most underrated person in Indian history.

References:

1. Chanakya’s Niti Shashtra:

http://philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/kautilya/canakya_niti_sastra.html

2. Chanakya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanakya

18
3. Maxims of Chanakya: Kautalya, Abhinav Publications by V. K. Subramanian

4. Kauṭilyas Arthashastra, “A neglected precursor to classical economics” by Waldauer,

C. Zahka, W.J. and Pal, S. 1996

5. "Chanakya, “The Legend", Chanakya National Law University. 2013

6. “Towards Improving Governance”. Academic Foundation, by S. K. Agarwal 2008.

7. Jainism: The World of Conquerors by Natubhai Shah

8 Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Chandragupta_Maurya

9. Alexander the Great by Arrian translated books available at Google or Persius.

10. Alexander the Great by Diodorus Siculus translated books available at Google or Persius.

11. Alexander the Great by Plutarch translated books available at Google or Persius

12. Alexander the Great by Anabasis and Indica translated books available at Google or
Persius.

12. Death of Alexander: -

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/have-scientists-solved-2000-year-
old-mystery-death-alexander-great-01213#sthash.pay0B9tF.dpuf

19