RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

PUNJAB

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT WORK

TOPIC- Kautilya: 7 elements of State

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Shubham Tanwar Dr. Saurav Sarmah
Roll no- 18020 (Assistant Professor of Pol. Sci.)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my Professor Dr. Saurav Sarmah, who provided me
with the opportunity of making this project, through which I have gained a lot of knowledge
and information. Through this project I was able to express my thoughts on paper and also
learn to extract deeper meanings. I would also like to give credit to my family who encouraged
and motivated me to complete this project.

Shubham Tanwar

(Roll No. 18020)

 Contents

Kautilya’s views on the concept of State ................................................................................................ 4

Issues That Are Part of Entire State Machinery ...................................................................................... 6

The Saptanga Theory: ......................................................................................................................... 7

King and Council of Ministers: ........................................................................................................... 7

The 7 Elements of State: ......................................................................................................................... 8

Aristotle’s Theory of State .................................................................................................................... 10

Features of State................................................................................................................................ 12

Organic Character of State ............................................................................................................ 12

A Totalitarian State ....................................................................................................................... 12

Criticisms .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Parallels between Kautilya and Aristotle .............................................................................................. 14

Kautilya’s views on the concept of State

Kautilya's Arthasastra (4th century B.C.) is one of the most influential treatise in Political
Science in the Indian Civilization. This work deals with virtually all aspects of governance in
a monarchical state. In the Indian philosophy, the objective of every being is the pursuit of
dharma. State, a human artifact, is constituted to get the human race out of the state of nature.
State enables the citizens to follow their respective dharma and to enjoy private property rights.
King is viewed as a protector of dharma, but not the sole interpreter of it.
In the Kautilya-Arthashastra, espionage and other ‘operational’ activities of the secret
service—notably ‘active measures’ and ‘covert action’— are addressed often and in detail. In
contrast, Kautilya seems to say very little about intelligence analysis, assessment and estimates
which provide the basis of strategic planning and grand strategy—and are key components of
statecraft. Kautilya does submit key methodological and theoretical ideas and concepts for
intelligence analysis, assessment, estimates and strategic planning. Therefore, the Kautilya-
Arthashastra is quite relevant for the history of ideas of the political science sub-discipline,
intelligence studies.

“An arrow, discharged by an archer, may kill one person or may not kill (even one), but
intellect operated by a wise man would kill even children in the womb.”1

The ancient Indian Kautilya-Arthashastra is a classical work of political theory and theorized
statecraft and a foundational text of the theory of international relations.2 As a work of
statecraft, it is ‘cognition-centric’ and features ‘intelligence’ prominently, but the terms
‘intelligence’, ‘intelligence analysis’, ‘intelligence estimate’, ‘strategic planning’ and ‘grand
strategy’ are absent in the text. Intelligence in its primary or generic sense is everywhere a
property of the mind. It stands for human beings’ inborn capacity to come to terms with life by
engaging in thought and acquiring, developing, and investing knowledge. Intelligence in its
derivative political sense is a component of statecraft that centers upon the need of one

1
Kautilya-Arthashastra, X, 6, 51. The Kautilya Arthashastra, Part II (English translation), Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1972.
2
Kautilya : Arthasastra : Translated by R Shamasastry ([1915] 1967), eighth ed., Mysore, India, Mysore
Printing and Publishing House.
politically unified community to have reliable information, knowledge, or ‘intelligence’ about
other societies in its environment.
Conservative type of governments were settled in antiquated India. At the hour of the intrusion
of Alexander of Macedonia (fourth century B.C.), there existed countless autonomous Ganas
(republics) like Agrasrenies in the Indus valley, Kamboj in the west, Panchals in the north and
so on (Sen, 1920:Ch.3; Ghoshal, 1923:2).2 Kautilya, the creator of Arthasastra, was a result of
this time. 3 He assumed the primary part in crushing the powers of Alexander. Kautilya
accepted that the Alexander's fruitful success of (some portion of) India was because of the
nonappearance of a solid incorporated Indian realm. He was resolved not to let history rehash
itself. Thus the Mauryan domain, which he was instrumental in establishing, was (moderately)
incorporated and altogether different from the then predominant conservative frameworks. His
composition - Arthasastra, hence, manages the administration in a monarchical state.
Arthasastra might be an epic with its name, yet it isn't. It advises just about structure regarding
administering of a state. T.N.Ramaswamy stated, "The Arthasastra is really a compilation of
political astuteness and hypothesis and a craft of statecraft, dissipated in pre-Kautilyan works,
smoothed out and reworked by Kautilya in his endeavor to build a different and particular study
of statecraft.
Kautilya's way of thinking says state as focal subject. Government framework was embraced
in that time. Kautilya had examined about state's cause, nature and working. In with respect to
inception of state he acknowledged the hypothesis of social-attachment. There was bad form
wherever in the general public. Along these lines, Manu had been chosen as ruler. Indian strict
epic had been considered as to be first Indian ruler. Individuals chose to give the 1/6 of their
collect, 1/10 of their exchanges and some duties from gold. Kautilya had not pondered the
government. He could just utilization of this abundance for government assistance and security
of the individuals. Along these lines, by Kautilya's view was utilized for social union. In this
setting Dr. Shamasastry says, "The hypothesis of implicit agreement was not obscure in the
times of Chanakya." Kautilya didn't conjecture on the root of the state. Like Machiavelli, he
was worried about the State of his own occasions. He was not keen on the inquiry as the how
the State, which had come into the ownership of Chandragupta Maurya, had been raised into
the presence, however with the more pressing issue of how to make it a strong and fiery state
prepared to confront interior just as outer threats. Best case scenario, the Mauryan Prime
Minister could follow the source of Mauryan State to the offenses of the Nanda. In spite of the
fact that he depicted in definite the arrangement of towns and the various parts of the town and
town life yet there is no reference to the root or development of the State in Kautilya.3

Issues That Are Part of Entire State Machinery

We generally begin our study of political theory and thought with the concepts of ideal state of
Plato and Aristotle and then jump suddenly to the study of diplomacy of Machiavelli. Very few
people have cared to take into account that it was Kautilya of ancient India who, too, had
described the organization of a well- organized state, and the qualities of an ideal ruler.4
Kautilya develops his hypothesis of the State as a natural element based on seven components,
which he portrays in his Arthashastra as Saptanga. The seven components, regardless of being
specified independently, remain in the nearest conceivable connection to each other and are in
themselves "commonly functional". "Saptang" shows seven appendages, constituents or
components. Together, they comprise the State as a creature, "similar to a chariot made out of
seven sections fitted and docile to each other". To a degree; the Saptanga hypothesis of State
discovers elaboration in the Ancient Greek Political Philosophy. For example: while
contrasting the State and the human body, Plato had contended that similarly as a cut in the
finger causes torment in the body, also injury of one organ makes issues for different organs of
the body politic. Seven Angas, Prakritis, or components were identified and explained by
Kautilya for depicting "the idea of the State" in its entirety.

Kautilyas Arthashastra is a one of a kind composition on the craft of statecraft or

administration, wherein each and every part of human life is dependent upon the purview of
the state. His nitty gritty work plainly set out a hierarchical set-up, and there was an obvious
division of morals and governmental issues. Nonetheless, he was of the feeling that legislative
issues without morals is perilous to the thriving and security of the whole realm. In all issues
of state, dharma ought to be the controlling element. From multiple points of view, Kautilya
was contrasted with Machiavelli in specific issues of statecraft. The following is a brief
explanation of various issues that are part of the entire state machinery:

3
Kangle, RK. The Kautilya Arthasastra, Part-3, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1986, p.116.
4
Rao, M V Krishna (1958) : Studies in Kautilya : Delhi, Munshi Ram Manohar Lai.
The Saptanga Theory:
According to Kautilya, a state has seven elements or constituents, namely, Swami— the King,
Amatya—the Minister, Janapada—the Land, and the People, Durga—the Fortress, Kosha—
the Treasury, Danda—the Army and Mitra—the Allies. This entire set-up of the kingdom was
described as Saptanga theory in ancient India. The Swamin refers to the king, regarded as the
indispensable, integral and inseparable part of the state in ancient India. King in all cases
belonged to the noble and royal family who possessed qualities of both head and heart. Amatya
or the minister refers to all the officials involved in the functioning of the government. It is
their responsibility to ensure that the government runs smoothly. Janapada implies the land and
the people and, according to Kautilya, must be fertile.5 The term 'Durga' in the antiquated India
implies stronghold, which is viewed as a critical component. Typically, fortresses were built
on the fringes of the region. Kautilya, actually, separated these fortresses into water, slope,
desert and timberland strongholds. The fifth component is Kosha or the depository. Kautilya
believed that a ruler must hoard abundance to advance the government assistance of individuals
and furthermore keep up his military. Danda alluded to the military to shield the state from
aggressions and keep up peace inside the state. Kautilya proposed that it is the obligation of
the ruler to see that his military is content with its function in the state. At last, Mitra alludes
to a companion or partners. A ruler must have certain reliable companions who help him in all
disasters. A ruler's quick neighbour turns into an adversary and a's foe turns into a companion
of the lord. The Saptanga hypothesis was, indeed, popular all through the antiquated period.
The state was viewed as a physical creature and its components as the pieces of the body.

King and Council of Ministers:

Kautilya attached great importance to the council of ministers or the Mantriparishad. He was
of the opinion that it is the king who has to decide on the number of departments his kingdom
should have. Kautilya also made it clear that in all important decisions, the king must consult
his ministers and then decide upon a particular policy. Kautilya further prescribed certain
essential qualities to become a minister. They are a minister must be native of the territory,
born in high family, influential, highly trained in arts, must have foresight, wise, bold, eloquent,
skilful, intelligent, pure in character, firm in loyalty towards the king, excellent conduct,
strength, health and brave, and free from all the six vices. According to Kautilya, after the king,
it is Amatya who is of chief importance. The term refers to the official involved in state

5
Unni, N.P, The Arthasastra of Kautilya, Bhartiya Vidya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1984.
machinery and sometimes, the chief minister is in charge of the entire administration. Kautilya
suggested that a king must appoint not more than four ministers to function as a consultative
body to the king.

The 7 Elements of State:

Arthasastra conceptualizes the state to have seven elements:

1. Swami (Monarch)
2. Amatya (Officials)
3. Janapada (Population and Territory)
4. Durga (Fort)
5. Kosa (Treasury)
6. Bala (Military)
7. Surhit (Ally)

King derived his power from three sources - Prabhushakti (the power of the army and the
treasury), Mantashakti (advice of wise men, specifically the Council of Ministers) and
Utsahshakti (charisma). Mantashakti was rated as the most potent source followed by the
prabhushakti and utsahshakti. Clearly Kautilya believed in the importance of institutions
(Council of Ministers) and not of an individual (King) in influencing the destiny of the state.
27 Next to the King came the Mantri Parishad (Council of Minister). King was enjoined to
discuss each and every matter with the Parishad as it represented the distilled wisdom of the
society. Parishad had two levels - the Inner cabinet and the Outer cabinet. The Inner cabinet
had four members - The Chief Minister, The Chief Priest, the Military Commander and the
Crown Prince. The Crown Prince was included to ensure smooth succession and to maintain
continuity in case of emergencies.6 The membership of the Outer cabinet was not fixed in
number. Invariably the heads of the prominent guilds were co-opted in this body. This gave a
representative character of the Parishad.

1)Swami (The Sovereign King)- Subscribing to monarchy as the ideal form of state, Kautilya
has accorded to the king “the highest place in the body- politic”. The Swami is the chief

6
Varma, Vishwanath Prasad, Studies in Hindu Political Thought and its Metaphysical Foundations : Delhi,
Varanasi, & Patna, Motilal Banarsidas, (1954).
executive head of the state and, is, thus “the consummation of all other elements”. The word
Swami is derived from the word Swayam which refers to self-determining. The Swami,
therefore, becomes a living and animate embodiment, which is subjected to be ruled by none,
does not follow any external rulings and is liable only to self- imposed restrictions

2) Amatya (The Minister)- In its narrow sense, the term Amatya or Mantrin is used for the
minister of the high grade. Kautilya describes an elaborate system of recruitment of the
Amatyas and other officials who were to be morally and ethically pure, honest in financial
matters and of good character. The Amatyas were expected to be natural born citizens, persons
of noble origin, free from all vices, men of infallible memory, friendly nature, wisdom, patience
and endurance.
3) Janapada (The People and The Territory)- This unique element of Saptanga is the symbol
of State, which stands for a “territorial society”. Here, ‘Jana’ denotes people and ‘Pada’ is a
symbol of territory where these inhabitants permanently reside. D.R. Bhandarkar and R.S.
Sharma are of the view that Kautilya’s Janapada includes not only territory but also population.
4) Durga (Fortification)- Kautilya regarded fortification as essential for the defense and
protection of the state. He wanted the state to fortify the territories from all sides. He has
described four types of fortification which include Audak, Paarvat, Dhannvana and Vana. Of
these categories, the first two are used for the protection of the territory and the remaining two
are used for the protection of the farmers.7 These fortifications, thus, would not only protect
the people and the capital, but would also be suitable for fighting purposes, i.e. for both
defensive and offensive purposes.
5) Kosha (The Treasury)- The flourishing economy is essential for the existence of the State
in all times and circumstances. That is probably why the philosophers of Ancient India looked
at treasury as an essential element of the State. Though Kautilya wanted a prosperous treasury,
he specifically directed the king to earn the wealth of nation only by legitimate and righteous
means and in no way by unfair and immoral means.8
6) Danda (The Army or The Force)- Kautilya accepted a strong and hereditary Kshatriya
army, as the most important requisite of the state. He insisted on the hereditary army, as it
would not only be skilled, well- contended and obedient to the king’s will, but also be free from
duplicity. Such an army would serve both the defensive and offensive purposes of the king.

7
Verma, S.K. Political History of Ancient India, Manglam Publications, New Delhi, 2007.
8
Kohli, Ritu. Kautilya’s Political Theory, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1995.
Hence, it was obvious for Kautilya to pay great attention to the maintenance and organization
of the army.
7) Mitra (The Allies)- Having realized that “political isolation means death”, Kautilya
proceeded to consider the Mitra or the ally as a vital factor. Kautilya recognizes two kinds of
allies, namely Sahaja and Kritrima.

Aristotle’s Theory of State

According to Aristotle, the state is a community of persons. Every community has certain purpose and
that purpose is good.
As a community the state has a purpose, and that purpose is also good. But the state is not an ordinary
community. It is the highest of all communities and naturally its purpose shall be the highest or
supreme. It is thus evident that like all associations the state is an association. But its purpose is
different from that of other associations. Again, it is not an ordinary association. It enjoys the highest
rank or position in the society or social structure.
It is true that man is, by nature, a self-interest seeking animal and he does not hesitate to oppose
the fulfilment of others’ interests. So, the law, justice, institutions and conventions which are
made by man may be evil. But Aristotle does not accept it. He is of opinion that laws and
conventions are basically good and man has made them to serve their beneficial objectives. To
sum up, the state has developed naturally. It must not be treated as a result on contract or human
contrivance. Men have made laws, institutions and conventions for their own benefit and these
have facilitated and enriched the functioning of the state.

If the state is a natural development there are definitely several stages. What are the stages?

Aristotle begins his argument by saying that the first stage of the state is the household. The
household is the simplest form of association and meets the simplest necessities. But man’s
necessities are various and naturally it is beyond the capacity of the family to meet those
demands. Several families have formed a village to fulfil the greater demands and necessities.
The village, although higher than the family, cannot cope with the growing demands of its
members, hence group of villages form a State.

Aristotle’s state major aims are the economic development, protection of rights and liberties,
formation of government and civil service structure to enable its citizens to use their
capabilities for collective happy life. The territory of the state should be all-producing, so that
the state has all things to be in need of nothing, which is called sufficiency. It should enable
the residents to live liberally so that they can enjoy leisure.

Aristotle states certain other things which an ideal state must have, such as food, arts, arms etc.
It should have a good amount of revenue so that it can take care of its internal needs as well as
protect itself from any external aggression. The state should also take care of the religion of
the people so that they can practice their respective religion fearlessly. The last and the most
important thing is that the authority in the state must have the power to decide what is good
and in favour of the public. A state should have farmers to produce food, artists and artisans to
promote art, soldiers to protect the boundaries of the state, the priests to carry out religious
practices etc.

Aristotle admits that not all those who are necessary for the functioning of the ideal state can
be deemed as citizens of that state. For example, children cannot be termed as citizens of the
state even though they are an integral part of the state as they do not participate in any political
process. Under some governments, mechanics and laborers will not be citizens while under
other, they might be included. A person who is exiled from the state will cease to be a citizen
of the state.

A person, who has the authority to participate in the judicial administration of the state, is
termed as a citizen of that state. He should be able to take part in the process of administration
of justice and legislation as a member of the deliberative assembly which can enable him to be
a citizen. Hence, it can be observed that all those people who are permitted to take part in the
political process of that state, for example, casting a vote or contesting elections, and all those
who are eligible to be the members of the executive or the legislative branch of the government
can be termed as citizens. With respect to who ‘ought’ to be citizens, Aristotle opines that all
those who are trained and are capable of becoming either the ruler or the ruled, ought to be
citizens. Also, a person who does not have property lacks experience in management skills as
he is not accustomed to managing any kind of property. Such a person, according to Aristotle,
cannot be expected to actively participate in the political affairs of the state and thus, in turn
cannot ‘manage’ the state.

But the state according to Aristotle is not an ordinary community. It is the highest of all
communities and naturally its purpose shall be the highest or supreme. It is thus evident that
like all associations the state is an association. But its purpose is different from that of other
associations. Again, it is not an ordinary association. It enjoys the highest rank or position in
the society or social structure.

Nature has inspired and encouraged man to be a part of the state. Aristotle believed that it was
not possible for man to live outside the state. Although he acknowledged the separate existence
of the individual, he did not think that the individual would not have separate ideal, morality
and goodness from those of the state. The individual, according to Aristotle, can achieve these
qualities only through the membership of and subordination to the state. He cannot have rights
and liberties apart from the state or against the state. He must sacrifice himself for the sake of
the common good embodied in the state.

In this respect we may say that Aristotle subordinates’ individuals to the state, if we mean that,
in balancing the claims of the individuals and the state, he favours the state more and
individuals less.

Features of State

Organic Character of State

A mere glance over Aristotle’s theory of state drives home an important point that it is organic
in nature—which means that the state is a compounded whole. He has made distinction
between “aggregate” and “whole”.

The former means that different parts of a thing are juxtaposed together to make a unit. By their
juxtaposition the parts make a unity. But the whole means a different thing. The polis or state
is a whole. The state has several parts. But when they are put together the unity will mean a
different matter. The state is not an aggregate of individuals. Its members are not atomized
individuals related to one another only by the fact that they inhabit the same territory. When
the individuals form a whole, they share a joint activity, and, at the same time, lose their
separateness. Again, if the parts are separated from the whole, they will be useless. This is the
organic theory of state.

A Totalitarian State

From the conception—the individual is subordinate to the state—another aspect of Aristotelian

theory of state is derived, it is: his state is totalitarian or authoritarian. The very simple meaning
of totalitarianism is that the state assumes the full responsibility of the all-round development
of the individual. It does not recognize the initiative to be adopted by the individual considering
his own advantages and disadvantages, and also the role of various social and political
institutions in moulding the character of the individual. Determination of goals and the methods
of their attainment will also be decided by the state. In a word, in the authoritarian view, the
state is all-powerful.

Criticisms

The first criticism against his theory of state is it is totalitarian in character. His concept of the
state is all- embracing. The individuals in his state have no separate status. They are completely
merged with the state. Its organic nature reveals the totalitarian feature. If the individuals are
separated from the state, they will lose their importance as the separated parts of human or
animal body lose their activity. Critics are of view that this contention of Aristotle about the
relationship between the state and individuals is unacceptable.

Secondly, in Aristotle’s theory of state, associations or communities have no separate

importance or position. The state or polis embraces all other communities. They owe their
existence to the state. It means that all the communities are merged in the body of the state.

Thirdly, it is not true that the state or polis is the greatest manifestation of supreme good. It
aims at some good no doubt but not the supreme good. By supreme good he means complete
human good, the good life of all members of the polis as distinct from the lesser goods or partial
welfare of the individuals.
Parallels between Kautilya and Aristotle

There is good deal of similarity between Kautiliya and Aristotle. Like Aristotle, Kautilya was
also a man of affairs and he corrected his knowledge of political theory with practical
experience of the forms and practices of government.

The 'Politics' of Aristotle gives an account of Greek conception of state. Like Kautilya,
Aristotle does not favour a sharp break with the ft past and his studies are based mainly on the
contemporary political data. Exactly in the same manner, Kautilya discusses all points with
reference to place, procedure, doubt, implication and complex political phenomenon. He based
his ideas not only on the ancient texts but also on the experience of knowledge he had acquired
by personal observation and study of political institutions. Aristotle flourished in the 4th century
BC, and thus was a contemporary of Kautilya. He was a tutor to Alexander just as Kautilya
was to Chandragupta Maurya.9

According to Aristotle, state should adopt more to the individual than to the divine. Political
science was an ethical aim. He aims at the creation of an ideal state. Kautilya conceived of the
identification of the individual and the community in the interest of his welfare state. The
austerity of life was practiced by both Aristotle and Kautilya. Purohita was not an element of
sovereignty in Kautilya. He was an important agent in the preservation of the integrity of the
state. The absence of Purohita from the elements of sovereignty in Kautilya bears a striking
resemblance to a similar aspect in Aristotle.

Another point of similarity between the two great and contemporary stateman was their attitude
towards the republican states. Aristotle stood for vigilance, good conduct, thoughtfulness,
exactitude, suitable training for citizens and good government. The state should be organized
to develop a class of virtuous men and philosophers who could assert the supremacy of reason.
political art was the means to bound the individual to the state. Kautilya, with a view to
arresting the forces of disintegration, attached much importance to the king or the sovereign,
and advocated the preservation of the solidarity of the state.10

9
Aristotle, Politics. Ed. Kumar Brothers, New Delhi, 1970, p. 133.
10
KAS, VIII, 2, 1,3. Raja Rajyomiti Prakritisamkepah etc.
Aristotle advocated a well-balanced constitution where as Kautilya pleaded for an organic
conception of the state of which King was the directing organ.

The state rests on definite and enduring relations and to both of them it was an organism. To
Kautilya society under the king was an organism. While to Aristotle the society and state were
one and indivisible. Aristotle attributed to the state a more complete personality. 11

Regarding the end of the state, Aristotle says that moral and intellectual wellbeing of the
citizen, acquisition of wealth, and material comforts, trade, wealth, empire etc. were some of
the important aspects of the state. The greatness of the state lay in the quality of its individual
citizens. The state according to Plato and Aristotle, regulated production and distribution of
wealth, laid down minute rule for the guidance of individual from cradle to the grave, exercised
complete control over all practical arts and took change of completing education and culture of
its citizens.

11
Aristotle, The Prince, p.230.