RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

PUNJAB

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT WORK

TOPIC- Kautilya: 7 elements of State

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Abhinav Sharma Dr. Shveta Dhaliwal
Roll no- 18113 (Assistant Professor of Pol. Sci.)
Group no- 11

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my Professor Dr. Shveta Dhaliwal, 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 thank the library staff,
members of IT staff, my batch mates and the seniors who guided me in this project. I would
also like to give credit to my family who encouraged and motivated me to complete this
project.

Abhinav Sharma

(Roll No. 18113)

B.A. LL.B. 2nd Year

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... 3
CH. 1- KAUTILYA’S VIEWS ON THE CONCEPT OF STATE...................................................................................4
CH. 2- ISSUES THAT ARE PART OF ENTIRE STATE MACHINERY........................................................................6
1. The Saptanga Theory:...............................................................................................................................6
2. King and Council of Ministers:.................................................................................................................7
3. Village Administration:..............................................................................................................................8
4. Law and Justice:........................................................................................................................................8
CH. 3- THE 7 ELEMENTS OF STATE.................................................................................................................. 9
CH. 4- KAUTILYA: INDIAN MACHIAVELLI...................................................................................................... 12
CH. 5- CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 14

3
 CH. 1- 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

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.

4
its derivative political sense is a component of statecraft that centers upon the need of one
politically unified community to have reliable information, knowledge, or ‘intelligence’ about
other societies in its environment.
Republican form of governments were well established in ancient India. At the time of the
invasion of Alexander of Macedonia (4th century B.C.), there existed a large number of
independent Ganas (republics) like Agrasrenies in the Indus valley, Kamboj in the west,
Panchals in the north etc (Sen, 1920:Ch.3; Ghoshal, 1923:2).2 Kautilya, the author of
Arthasastra, was a product of this era. 3 He played the main role in defeating the forces of
Alexander. Kautilya believed that the Alexander's successful conquest of (a part of) India was
due to the absence of a strong centralized Indian empire. He was determined not to let history
repeat itself. Hence the Mauryan empire, which he was instrumental in founding, was
(relatively) centralized and very different from the then prevailing republican systems. His
treatise - Arthasastra, therefore, deals only with the governance in a monarchical state.
Arthasastra may be an epic with its name, but it is not. It informs only about structure of
ruling of a state. T.N.Ramaswamy said, “The Arthasastra is truly an anthology of political
wisdom and theory and an art of statecraft, scattered in pre-Kautilyan writings, streamlined
and reinterpreted by Kautilya in his attempt to construct a separate and distinct science of
statecraft.
Kautilya’s philosophy says state as central theme. Monarchy system was adopted in that time.
Kautilya had discussed about state’s origin, nature and working. In regarding to origin of
state he accepted the theory of social-cohesion. There was injustice everywhere in the
society. So, Manu had been selected as ruler. Indian religious epic had been considered as to
be first Indian king. People decided to give the 1/6 of their harvest, 1/10 of their trades and
some taxes from gold. Kautilya had not thought about the monarchy. He could only use of
this wealth for welfare and security of the people. Thus, by Kautilya’s view was used for
social cohesion. In this context Dr. Shamasastry says, “The theory of social contract was not
unknown in the days of Chanakya.” Kautilya did not speculate on the origin of the state. Like
Machiavelli, he was concerned with the State of his own times. He was not interested in the
question as the how the State, which had come into the possession of Chandragupta Maurya,
had been brought up into the existence, but with the more urgent problem of how to make it a
mighty and vigorous state ready to face internal as well as external dangers. At best, the
Mauryan Prime Minister could trace the origin of Mauryan State to the misdeeds of the
Nanda. Though he described in detailed the formation of villages and the different aspects of

5
the village and town life yet there is no reference to the origin or evolution of the State in
Kautilya.3

CH. 2- 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 builds up his theory of the State as an organic entity on the basis of seven elements,
which he describes in his Arthashastra as Saptanga. The seven elements, despite being
enumerated separately, stand in the closest possible relation to one another and are in
themselves “mutually serviceable”. The word “Saptang” indicates seven limbs, constituents
or elements. Together, they constitute the State as an organism, “like a chariot composed of
seven parts fitted and subservient to one another”. To an extent; the Saptanga theory of State
finds elaboration in the Ancient Greek Political Philosophy. For instance: while comparing
the State with the human body, Plato had argued that just as a cut in the finger causes pain in
the body, similarly injury of one organ creates problems for the other organs of the body
politic. Seven Angas, Prakritis, or elements were enumerated and elucidated by Kautilya for
describing “the nature of the State” in its totality.
Kautilyas Arthashastra is a unique treatise on the art of statecraft or governance, wherein
every single aspect of human life is subject to the jurisdiction of the state. His detailed work
clearly laid down an organizational set-up, and there was a clear-cut division of ethics and
politics. However, he was of the opinion that politics devoid of ethics is dangerous to the
prosperity and security of the entire kingdom. In all matters of state, dharma should be the
guiding factor. In many ways, Kautilya was compared to Machiavelli in certain matters of
statecraft.5 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.
5
Sen, AK (1920) : Studies in Hindu Political Thought : Calcutta Review, Dec. 1926, India,(1958).

6
1. The Saptanga Theory:
According to Kautilya, a state has seven elements or constituents, namely, Swamin— 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.6

The term ‘Durga’ in the ancient India means fort, which is considered an extremely important
element. Usually, forts were constructed on the borders of the territory. Kautilya, in fact,
divided these forts into water, hill, desert and forest forts. The fifth element is Kosha or the
treasury. Kautilya opined that a king must amass wealth to promote the welfare of the people
and also maintain his army. Danda referred to the armed forces to protect the state from
aggressions and maintain law and order within the state. Kautilya suggested that it is the
responsibility of the king to see that his army is content with its role in the state. Finally,
Mitra refers to a friend or allies. A king must have certain dependable friends who help him
in all calamities. A king’s immediate neighbour becomes an enemy and an enemy’s enemy
becomes a friend of the king. The Saptanga theory was, in fact, famous all through the
ancient period. The state was regarded as a physical organism and its elements as the parts of
the body.

2. 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,
6
Unni, N.P, The Arthasastra of Kautilya, Bhartiya Vidya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1984.

7
after the king, it is Amatya who is of chief importance. The term refers to the official
involved in state 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.

3. Village Administration:
According to Kautilya, the village administration is a hierarchical set-up with five layers,
viz.. Grama, Sthamya, Dronamukha, Kharvatika and Samgrahana. A Gopa was made in
charge of nearly 5-10 villages. Above Gopa there was a Stanika. Over four Stanikas, there
was a Smaharta. Both the Gopas and the Stanikas are responsible for the urban administration
and they have to work under Nagarikas. Apart from the above officials, the village elders
were given a special place. They were made in charge of the properties of the temples and
temple lands. There was no element of elections in this position.

4. Law and Justice:

In the ancient Indian political process, it is the Dharma Shastra that served as the guide for
justice. According to Kautilya, whenever there is a conflict between the sacred law and the
law that is in practice, it is with the reason that a king must give a judgment. Kautilya,
further, supported the rule of law. He was of the opinion that when a king abides by the rules,
he would one day conquer the entire world. On the other hand, if he misuses the power, he
would be bound to go to hell. As regards the qualities of a judge, Kautilya viewed that he
must be a person of high calibre, self-restraint, balanced and must be well-versed in all the
basic principles of law. It is binding upon him to familiarize himself with the people and also
have thorough knowledge about the customs of the people as it would enable him to give the
correct judgement. A person who becomes an eyewitness for any crime committed must be a
person of integrity and character, and be given due protection against injury or insult.7

With reference to crimes and punishments, Kautilya suggested a wide range of punishments
for every single crime committed. For instance, if the husband is of bad character, or likely to
endanger the life of his wife, or has fallen from his caste or lost his vitality, his wife may
abandon him. In his opinion, those who propose, or assess, and act as witnesses must be fined
if they have entered into false agreements. Kautilya, further, provided two types of courts to
deal with civil and criminal cases. The civil court is called Dharmasthiya and Sodhana is the

7
Prakash, Aseem. State and Statecraft in Kaultilya’s Arthshastra, Fall Semester Mini Conference, Indiana
University, Bloomington, U.S. (Dec. 11 and 13, 1993).

8
criminal court. It was widely believed by the entire ancient Indian society that Dharma and
customs cannot be violated and the king’s commands are nothing but application of those
sacred laws.

CH. 3- 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. 8 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 executive head of the state and, is, thus “the consummation of all other elements”. The
8
Varma, Vishwanath Prasad, Studies in Hindu Political Thought and its Metaphysical Foundations : Delhi,
Varanasi, & Patna, Motilal Banarsidas, (1954).

9
word Swami is derived from the word swayam which refers to selfdetermining. 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. 9 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.10
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

9
Verma, S.K. Political History of Ancient India, Manglam Publications, New Delhi, 2007.
10
Kohli, Ritu. Kautilya’s Political Theory, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1995.

10
king. 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. The Sahaja or natural ally is the one whose friendship is
derived from the times of King’s father and grandfather and who is situated close to the
territory of the immediately neighboring enemy. On the other hand, the Kritrima or the
acquired ally is the one whose friendship is specially resorted to for the protection of wealth
and life.

Although, Kautilya’s state theory states the monarchical democracy, but the sole authority
vested under the king to make law and that it derived from four sources Dharma (sacred
law), Vyavhara (evidence), Charita (history and custom) and Rajasasana (edicts of the
king). Arthashastra represents a system of civil, criminal and mercantile law. For instance,
the following were codified a procedure for interrogation, torture, trial, the rights of the
accused, Constitution of permissible evidence, a procedure for autopsy in case of death in
suspicious circumstances, Constitution of (deformation) and procedure for claiming damages,
invalid and invalid contract.11
The Arthashastra catalogues a phalanx of officers called superintendents, lower in importance
than the ministerial officers and much below them, belonging to the sixth order, according to
remuneration. They are not heads of departments. The superintendents might be as chiefs of
sections dealing with various economic and other activities of the government. Most of these
sections are the modern business departments. A dual control is exercised over the
superintendents. As far as control of the services of the personal and collection of revenue are
concerned, they are under the Collector-General.

11
Bhaskar, Anand Saletore. Ancient Indian Political thought & Institutions, Asia Publishing House, New York,
1963.

11
 CH. 4- KAUTILYA: INDIAN MACHIAVELLI

The Arthashastra is indeed a masterpiece of statecraft, diplomacy, and strategy and is an

example of non-Western literature that should be read as part of the “realist” canon. Its
prescriptions are especially relevant for foreign policy today. Although the Arthashastra is
ostensibly authored by Kautilya (“crooked”), most scholars agree that Kautilya was a pen
name of the ancient Indian minister Chanakya. Chanakya was the minister to
Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan Empire, which emerged in an environment
resembling a Westphalian Europe of many states that encompassed most of present day
South Asia. In his role as minister, Chanakya was said to have played a leading role in
assembling and administering this large empire. In the Arthashastra, he compiles his
observations of statecraft based on this experience. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a
prescriptive text that lays out rules and norms for successfully running a state and
conducting international relations. Like Sunzi’s Art of War, the Arthashastra abounds in
generalities and is not descriptive of specific, historical events or battles. In this way,
Kautilya sought to make the text useful and relevant in a variety of situations, across eras,
a sort of “textbook for kings.” 12

Chanakya (India, 4th Century) and Machiavelli (Italy, 15th Century) are probably two of the
greatest thinkers the world has seen so far. Both of them are the best examples of Pragmatism
and Realism if one is interested in learning these two habits in life.
Kautilya, also known by the name of Vishnu Gupta was a minister in the kingdom of
Chandragupta Maurya’s dynasty during 317 B.C to 293 B.C. He was an Indian teacher,
philosopher and royal advisor to the King of the most powerful dynasty of India at the time.
He expressed detailed views on State, War, Social Structures, Diplomacy, Ethics, Politics and
Statecraft very succinctly in his book called “Arthashastra”.

12
Kaur, Kiranjit. “KAUTILYA : SAPTANGA THEORY OF STATE.” The Indian Journal of Political Science,
vol. 71, no. 1, 2010, pp. 59–68. JSTOR.

12
Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, historian, philosopher, politician and diplomat
who lived from 1469 A.D to 1527 A.D. He was a secretary in the Republic of Florence, and
when he lost his position, he wrote his fist masterpiece, “The Prince” which lays down one of
the earliest proponents of modern political science – political ethics to be more specific. 13 He
was considered to be such a frank political realist, that modern political scientist called him
“a teacher of evil”. “Macheviallinism” is the term used to characterize “cunning, scheming or
unscrupulous, especially in politics.”

Kautilya and Machiavelli were similar in some ways and different in others.14 This paper will
describe to you their ideas of morality, virtue, imperialism and superiority of the King.
Kautilya is often called “Indian Machevialli”. Kautilya relentlessly asks all sorts of questions
in his book – How the use of violence is justified, how and when one can sacrifice one’s own
secret agent, how a king is to test his ministers, when a king must kill his son, the heir to the
throne. None of these questions seemed too immoral for Kautilya to question, and answer.
What mattered was the preservation of the State and the common good. If, in the course of
achieving that, there were certain seemingly immoral standards, calculating or brutal
measures had to be adopted, it was permissible. This is what made him one of the first great
political realists of the World. Roger Boesche describes Arthashastra as “a book of political
realism, a book analysing how the political world does work and not very often stating how it
ought to work.”

13
Gray, Stuart. “Reexamining Kautilya and Machiavelli: Flexibility and the Problem of Legitimacy in
Brahmanical and Secular Realism.” Political Theory, vol. 42, no. 6, 2014, pp. 635–657.JSTOR.
14
Prasad Narsingha, “POLITICAL MORALITY vs. POLITICAL NECESSITY: KAUṬILYA AND
MACHIAVELLI REVISITED.” Journal of Asian History, vol. 19, no. 2, 1985, pp. 101–142. JSTOR.

13
 CH. 5- CONCLUSION

The Arthashastra is a textbook of practical politics and statecraft. One of the outstanding
contributions of Kautilya’s Arthashastra to statecraft and governance in a monarchical state.
Hence, Kautilya’s theory of state envisages a rational approach to governance and state craft
which conceptualizes the state and the office of the kingship to be human artifacts.
The ideal society of the Arthasastra did last for a couple of centuries. However the successful
Muslims invasion in the 8th century indicated a serious (military) deficiency in the 'Hindu'
society. The vision of Kautilya was a creation of a strong and prosperous Vedic order so the
foreigner invasions (like that of Alexander) could be repulsed. The success of the Muslim
invasion suggested that either the governance by the 'Hindu' Kings was not according to the
tenets of the Arthasastra or the Arthasastra philosophy itself had become antiquated. Probably
both were true. Kings had certainly deviated from the Vedic ideal of a 'dharmic king' - the
'servant' of the people and the protector of the dharmic order. Varna system had degenerated
into a caste system. The rational and dharmic order of the Arthasastra had ben reduced to
only a shadow of its past glory. Muslim invasion probably found an easy target in a moribund
order.
Kautilya’s concept of ‘State’ is, however, vividly reflected in his description of angas or
elements of the state. He did not specifically define the term ‘State’, as he was essentially a
man of action, and not a theorist. His concern for and emphasis on the internal and external
security of state was to save humanity from a sort of Hobbesian state of nature. The Saptang
theory is a vivid manifestation of Kautilya’s deeper understanding of not only the political
nature of man, but also the functioning of his political institutions, especially the state.
Kautilya and Machiavelli, both, had moral principles similar to one another, and judged
political actions by their results. Thus, all means would be justified depending on whether the
desired was achieved or not. This is why both have been condemned and called immoral.
Thus, we can say that both of them redefined the meaning and definition of ‘moral’. Born in a
Buddhist family, Kautilya founded political power on dharma or virtue. According to him,

14
the State had a moral purpose : to bring about order, and the king at all times has to be guided
by dharma. (Kautilya was also known as Chanakya, which means ‘Moralist’ in Sanskrit).

15