TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................4

VIEWS OF MANU AND KAUTILYA..................................................................6

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE....................................................................10

IDENTIFYING THESE IMPORTANCE OF THESE RIGHTS AND

DUTIES IN MODERN DAY INDIA...................................................................11

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................12
 INTRODUCTION

Indian political thought were evolved by great intellectuals in ancient times. Manu and
Kautilya, the ancient Indian philosophers had devised highly valuable political and
administrative ideas and policies. In the times that started with the philosophical developments
which are communicated in the otherworldly messages known as Upanishads and finished in
the public authority of the head Asoka, whose rule reached out over most parts of India except
southernmost India, this established the dimensions of Indian Social thought. During the next
hundreds of years, around from the seventh to the center of the third century B.C., new
methodologies of job and income creation, the consolidation of indigenous groups into the
Aryan group, and other social changes changed the old organizations of oneness and new social
connections requesting new defenses were formed. Individuals were confronted with
difficulties of life that expected to reconsider essential qualities and organizations. Various
thoughts regarding the nature and fate of human life started to challenge old fashioned strict
religious notions.

According to the ancient folklore of India, Manu is described as the first man. He is the
legendary creator of the Manu-smriti which is translated as the Laws of Manu, and is a
significant Sanskrit law code. The name is related with the Indo-European "man" and
furthermore has an etymological association with the Sanskrit word man-, "to think." Manu is
shown in the Vedas which is the most profound and hallowed writing of Hinduism, as the
follower of the main punishment. Otherwise, he is also called as the first lord, and most rulers
of medieval ages in India trace back their family history back to him, either through his girl (the
lunar line) or his son (the sun based line).

Kautilya or Chanakya was a consultant and the Prime Minister to the principal Mauryan king
Chandragupta (c. 340-293 B.C.E.). Kautilya was the engineer of Chandragupta’s ascent to
power. As per legend, Kautilya was a teacher at Taxila University and when the Greeks
attacked India, and he vowed to oust them. He perceived the nature of youthful Chandragupt,
and indetified qualities of a leader and ruler in him and guided him to conquer the Nanda region
and destroyed the Greek forces who were settled in northern India, at that point created a
productive government which extended the Mauryan realm over the majority of the Indian
subcontinent (aside from the zone south of present-day Karnataka), including pieces of present-
day Afghanistan.

Chanakya is generally known as Kautilya and Vishnugupta, he is the writer of the Arthaśhāstra,
an all-encompassing work on politics, economics and governance. 1A few researchers have
called Chanakya "the pioneer economist of the world" 2and "the Indian Machiavelli."
Contrasted by numerous individuals with Italian legislator and essayist Niccolò Machiavelli and
by others to Aristotle and Plato, Chanakya is then denounced for his trickery and heartlessness
and dishonesty and adulated for his sound political mind and information on human instinct.
3
All researchers concur, notwithstanding, that it was fundamentally a direct result of Chanakya
that the Mauryan realm under Chandragupta and later under Ashoka (ruled c. 265–c. 238)
turned into a model of productive government

VIEWS OF MANU AND KAUTILYA

The duties and rights of king, show how a ruler should act, how he was made, and how he can
achieve even greater heights. A Kshatriya, who has gotten power by the ceremony endorsed by
the Veda, should appropriately ensure safety of this entire world. For, when these animals,
being without a ruler, through dread scattered every way, the Lord made a ruler for the security
of this creation, because a king has been formed of particles of those lords of the gods, he
therefore surpasses all created beings in luster and, like the sun, he burns eyes and hearts; nor
can anybody on earth even gaze on him.4

1
The Date of the Arthaśhāstra, I. W. Mabbett, , Journal of the American Oriental Society 84(2) (1964)
2
Chanakya: The pioneer economist of the world, International Journal of Social Economics 25 (2-4):
267-282.
3
"The Indian Machiavelli" or Political Theory in India Two Thousand Years Ago, Political Science
Quarterly, Herbert H. Gowen, 44 (2): 173-192.
4
Tatavarthy, Bhawaan & Lanka, Pandit. (2017). RG MS-A 7 - Article 7: Duties of King. MANU SMRITI -
AN INDIAN PHILOSPHY [A Psychological study on the ancient laws for Mankind).
10.13140/RG.2.2.32262.68160.
Manu said that let the ruler him act with equity in his own area, the ruler with meticulousness
should berate his adversaries, act without guile towards his companions, and be merciful
towards Brahmanas. The popularity of a ruler who acts consequently, despite the fact that he
remains alive by gathering, are spread on the planet, similar to a drop of oil on water. Let the
ruler, Subsequently, the ruler should rise promptly in the first part of the day, and start the day
by worshipping the knowledgeable Brahmanas who are educated in the triple sacrosanct science
and also educated in politics, and the king must follow their recommendation. Let him choose
seven or eight priests whose precursors have been imperial workers, who are versed in technical
disciplines, saints, talented in the utilization of weapons and descending from honorable
families. 5

Whomsoever, the ruler considers as antagonistic, his prompt neighbor and the friend of the
adversary, and as unbiased king past those two. The king should load with having taken his last
goal with him, let him thereafter start to act. He should likewise delegate different authorities
to, men of trustworthiness, who are shrewd, firm, well read, able to gather cash, and tried. 6A
king shall offer various (Srauta) sacrifices at which liberal fees (are distributed), and in order to
acquire merit, he shall give to Brahmanas enjoyments and wealth.

A king, who, while he secures his kin, from deeds by enemies, should be equivalent in quality,
or more grounded, or more fragile, must not shrivel from fight, recalling the obligation of
Kshatriyas. Not to turn around in fight, to ensure the individuals, to respect the Brahmanas, are
the best methods for a lord to make sure about bliss. The king should not cut up his own root,
by exacting no expenses, nor the foundation of other men by unreasonable insatiability; for by
cutting up his own root (or theirs), he can make himself feel as wretched. The ruler, having
painstakingly thought of be every issue should be both sharp and delicate because for a lord
who is both sharp and delicate is profoundly regarded says Kautilya.7

The king should be a mastermind at everything, in such a way that no partner, no nonpartisan or
adversary may harm him; that is the amount of political astuteness one king must have.
8
However, on the off chance that the lord embraces an undertaking against a threatening realm,

5
Ibid, Pg. 4.
6
Ibid, pg. 11.
7
Studies in Kautilya, M. V. Krishna Rao, 2d ed., p.232, New Delhi: Munshi RamManohar Lal, 1958.
8
Ibid, pg. 235.
at that point he should continuously advance, in the accompanying way, against his enemy's
capital. For critical crossroads he should be able safeguard his abundance and to the detriment
of his abundance let him save his significant other or wife; let him at all occasions protect
himself even by surrendering his wife and his riches.

Manu in Manusmriti had also given the capabilities of the ruler who could be the legal head.
The person who is honest, acts after due thought, astute, and knows the individual estimation of
uprightness, delight, and abundance could be the Judicial head. 9A ruler who appropriately calls
for punishment thrived; yet in the event that he was clever, biased, and beguiling he was to be
removed, even by using the same treacherous discipline, which he exacted. Manu felt that the
legal organization ought not rest in the possession of a moronic ruler. In the event that legal
organization were given to such a ruler he would pulverize the entire nation.10

Kautilya likewise referenced the accompanying as the most significant of the necessary
characteristics: vast information; great memory; a strong mental endurance; capacity to be
comical without loss of poise; excitement towards work; flexibility; freedom from enthusiasm,
rage, covetousness, whimsicalness, and disdain; capacity to cause punishment and give
rewards; ability to make preparations for perils and cataclysms; respect; prescience; capacity to
choose harmony and war and to exploit the frail purposes of a foe; possession of an always
grinning face; and recognition of customs charged by matured people. 11Kautilya advised the
King to divide the day and the night into eight equal parts each, such that he is able to arrange
the daily duties.12 The twenty-four hours of the day and night were to be divided into thirty
parts (muhurtas), these muhurtas included time for Business with spies, Religious observances,
meals, Physical exercise, Consultation with judges, sleep etc.13

Both Manu and Kautilya viewed the ruler as the terrific shield of the individuals' security and
the strength of the social request. It was all around accepted that if the lord was highminded, the
State flourished. In the event that he was horrible and overbearing, flourishing declined and
9
Criminal Justice in Ancient India, Chakraborti, H., New Delhi, Vedams eBooks (P) Ltd., 1996,
10
The Laws of Manu, Buhler, G., Delhi, Banarsidass, Reprint from Oxford University’s 1886-edition, 1984.
11
Singh, Ram Ranbir. “KAUTILYA'S CONCEPTION OF STATE.” The Indian Journal of Political Science,
vol. 65, no. 1, 2004, pp. 41–54. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41855796. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.
12
Arthasastra; Bk. I. ch. 9.
13
Julius Lipner, Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 1994), pp.83–88;
Political Theory of Ancient India, John W. Spellman, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 98.
individuals endured. 14A ruler without ethicalness and unequipped for ensuring individuals turns
into the reason for individuals' devastation. A decent ruler was the base of all advancement; he
bore all the weight of the individuals. Kautilya posed another thought to justify, in particular,
the crucial situation of the lord in the state. He said; 'As the king, so his kin'. That individuals
mirror the king and make him their model was a political aphorism with him, as it was with
numerous a devotee to sovereignty. He accepted that sovereignty could change the social
existence of individuals as per its ideals or indecencies. The wonder is perceptible in
contemporary India. Society has become degenerate on the grounds that the individuals at the
top, the clergymen and the lawmakers, are additionally corrupted.

Manu advised the king to appoint skilful, highborn and honest men to collect the revenues and
other taxes, and to execute the policies of the state. 15The king was to see that these subordinate
officials remained free from the corrupting influence of power; they were not allowed to
oppress and rob the people. Kautilya suggested that local officials, 'while occupied with work,
they were to be day by day inspected; for, men were normally fickle minded and like ponies at
work showed consistent change in their temper. 16 Kautilya conceded that some level of
defilement would consistently exist, and can't be investigated impeccably. He consequently
suggested strictest discipline, both material and corporal, as a disincentive to swindle. 17

As per Manusmriti to be a decent ruler, the king ought to control his way of life in a legitimate
manner. At that point just he would have the privilege and capacity to govern the nation and
apply the danda -the bar of discipline to the reprobates. 18He should be keen, liberated from
indecencies, refined, upstanding, ought to have restraint, should regard for the older folks and
the Brahmins, ought to have legitimate training of the Vedas, governmental issues, history,

14
The Minister as a King-maker, Ishwar Topa; Kitabistan, 1941, p. 52.
15
Chandragupta Maurya: A Gem of Indian History Purushottam Lal Bhargava, 2d rev. ed. (New Delhi: D.
K. Printworld, 1996), p. 114.; Arun Bhattacharjee; History of Ancient India (New Delhi: Sterling
Publishers,1979), 143–48, 173;
16
Sihag, Balbir S. “Kauṭilya on Moral, Market, and Government Failures.” International Journal of Hindu
Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, 2009, pp. 83–102. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40343807. Accessed 14 Nov.
2020.
17
Studies in Kautilya, 2d ed. , M. V. Krishna Rao, p.232 (New Delhi: Munshi RamManohar Lal, 1958).
18
Tatavarthy, Bhawaan & Lanka, Pandit. (2017). RG MS-A 7 - Article 7: Duties of King. MANU SMRITI -
AN INDIAN PHILOSPHY [A Psychological study on the ancient laws for Mankind).
10.13140/RG.2.2.32262.68160.
agribusiness, and otherworldly science, hold fast to consecrated writings and he ought to
command his subjects with energy. 19With regards to the controlling power of Vedic Brahmin
(clergyman) over the king there was some distinction among Manusmriti and the Arthasâstra of
Kautilya. The last relegated more capacity to the ruler than recommended in the previous
writings. This may have gotten important to bring together India under a strong king. 20

As per Manu the seven components of prakritis were the king, the pastors, the ally, the capital,
the depository, the military and the realm. Kautilya put the components in a specific order: the
lord, the priest, the nation, the fortress, the treasury, the military, the ally and the adversary.
21
Hence he changed the past usage of order of priority and added another component,
specifically, the foe. Notwithstanding, he concurred with Manu when he expressed that aside
from the adversary, these seven components, had of their magnificent attributes, were supposed
to be the appendage like components of the state.22

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

The political leaders, as per Manu and Kautilya, needed to set a model by sticking to exclusive
expectations of conduct and working. In contemporary occasions there have been regular
reminders that it isn't positions which commands respect but it is an individual who commands
respects. For such individuals to sustain they utilize and continue power presented to them, not
by manhandling it yet by utilizing it in a useful way for the general public concerned.

Perspectives on Manu and Kautilya on state relations and tactics had additionally been
examined before. The support of an overall influence was one of the issues in unfamiliar
relations which drew in the consideration of the ambassadors in old days. Both Manu and
Kautilya had offered wide-going and really interesting conversations on war and discretion,
including their desire to had their ruler become a world leader. They had examined the different
models of strategy, diplomacy, foreign policy to be adopted by the king, and the roles and
duties of the representatives and spies. Kautilya at last sought for harmony however his

19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Romila Thapar; Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), p.174.
22
Ibid, p. 175.
methods were of war and in this way he believed that except if there was a world where his
state was at the middle and most powerful one couldn't achieve harmony. 23

The functions of the king’s representatives were to convey the message accurately as endowed
to him, to represent the king during partnerships or arrangements, to pronounce war or make
harmony, to understand the geological position, and act accordingly, to asses strong points,
military power and monetary condition of an alien state and to accumulate the best conceivable
data. He was hence fundamentally concerned about the indispensable issues of an foreign
policy of a state. As the diplomats needed to perform significant as well as sensitive and
hazardous obligations, the Manusmriti and Kautilya 's Arthasastra pretty much endorse similar
higher capabilities for them, for example, an honorable family foundation, unobtrusiveness,
propriety, expert articulation of discourse, ability to pass on the message precisely as depended
to him and a sharp and superb memory.

With regards to administration of justice, there was no distinction in the nature of the courts,
that is there were no specific courts to look after civil and criminal matters. All the courts were
governed by sacred law, customs and through the discretion of judge which in most cases was
the king. Moreover, in the modern times, the administration of justice is not the function of the
king, rather such function is kept separate from the ruler to ensure that there is no biases while
administrating justice. Judiciary is a separate organ of the state and commands equal respect as
given to the democratically elected government. There was no distinction between civil and
criminal courts. The law which these courts were told to administer was an amalgam of sacred
law, customs and discretion.24

Though the kingdom was a feudal monarchy, it had a well-structured administrative machinery,
containing various departments and the heads of these departments were charged with well
specified responsibilities. The constitution of India was a remarkable achievement in the
elimination of discrimination of justice. The constitution of India has sought to create a more
equal and just rule of law between individuals and groups than what existed under traditional
authorities such as Manusmriti.
23
Narayan, Jitendra. “RELEVANCE OF RAJADHARMA OF ANCIENT INDIA.” The Indian Journal of
Political Science, vol. 65, no. 1, 2004, pp. 21–28. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41855794. Accessed 15
Nov. 2020.
24
Narayan, Jitendra. “CORRUPTION IN ADMINISTRATION IN ANCIENT INDIA.” The Indian Journal of
Political Science.
 IDENTIFYING THESE IMPORTANCE OF THESE RIGHTS AND
DUTIES IN MODERN DAY INDIA

Going to the modern pertinence of the rights and dulties of kings provided in the two antiquated
texts, Manusmriti and Arthashatra for making an honest and competent ruler, it very well may
be seen that defilement and unscrupulousness of government officials and most importantly the
supreme leader have become significant issues lately. The present day media is flooded with
news about charges and cases of corruption against major leaders of a state. Shockingly, these
degenerate lawmakers could without much of a stretch figure out how to get reappointed and
continue seeking power after their devilish exercises. Many even figure out how to assemble
overpowering mass help regardless of their faulty standing. India has been jeopardized on
account of the loathsome exercises of these corrupt lawmakers. Directions and rules in
Manusmriti and the Arthasâstra of Kautilya may be of significant assistance in making a honest
lawmaker. It is, notwithstanding, contended by numerous that these writings contrived rules for
an a powerful monarchy. Hence, they had no significance for majority rule as there is in present
day nations like India.

Notwithstanding, based on the rights and duties recommended in these writings for the ruler,
can likewise receive these rules for the government officials and ideological groups in a
popularity based framework. Both Manu and Kautilya put stock in the proverb "Yatha Raja
Thatha Prajah" (As the King is, so will be the people"). Subsequently they set out the condition
that an ideal King was one who had the most noteworthy characteristics of initiative, keenness,
energy and individual credits. 25
As per Kautilya, the King needed to completely test the
respectability of those whom he had designated in the state for different regulatory capacities.
Kautilya likewise advised the risks intrinsic in King's administration.

The Concept of Dharma as given by Kautilya can be still found relevant in the decisions taken
by leaders in India, this can be inferred from the climate change negotiations held in 2015,
where India is considered as naysayers, India did not give up on its moral and just stand and

25
Gupta, R.K. “LAW & ORDER ADMINISTRATION IN ANCIENT INDIA.” The Indian Journal of Political
Science, vol. 65, no. 1, 2004, pp. 111–122. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41855801. Accessed 13 Nov.
2020.
stated it as a fight of dharma and a-dharma.26 India vouched for climate justice over climate
change. According to Indian leaders, climate change should always be spoken with climate
justice, where it should be demonstrated that everyone has sensitivity and resolve to secure
future of the poor from perils and disasters. 27This was done to protect India from sanctions
which would hamper its growth.

Kautilya and Manu both emphasized on the facts that the kings should gather support against
the enemy of the state, it is the first and foremost duty of a king to protect his subjects. Kautilya
in Arthsashastra talks about collecting support from foreign nations to fight and defeat their
comman enemy. One of the duties of King is to maintain healthy diplomatic relations with
friendly foreign nations. In furtherance of this, India gave refugee to the 14 th Dalai Lama and
his followers , one could conclude that it was solely based on the reasons provided in
Arthsashastra by Kautilya. India has a global responsibility to protect the citizens of Tibet,
India needs to ensure that the Tibetan civilization survives and India needs to nurture its soft
power for a better future of Tibetans both in china and outside. The reason for this relationship
is obvious, because of the interface of Indian with the Tibetan human advancement, and
obviously the artha or international geopolitical angle, which a few intellectuals term as the
'Tibet Card'.28

CONCLUSION

26
IDSA Monograph by P.K. Gautam, Kautilya’s Arthashastra: Contemporary Issue and Comparison
27
Web commentary on coping up with environmental changes: The Importance of Evolving a balance between
Artha, Kama and Dharma.
28
Tibet: Perspective and Prospects, 281-301, Vivekananda International Foundation, 2013.
Both, Manu and Kautilya, the ancient Indian philosophers had devised highly valuable political
and administrative ideas and policies. The duties and rights of king, show how a ruler should
act, how he was made, and how he can achieve even greater heights. According to both Manu
and Kautilya. Both Manu and Kautilya thought that kings should have versatile qualities which
would help them in commanding respect of the public, some of the most significant
characteristics the most significant of the necessary characteristics: vast information; great
memory; a strong mental endurance; capacity to be comical without loss of poise; excitement
towards work; flexibility; freedom from enthusiasm, rage, covetousness, whimsicalness, and
disdain; capacity to cause punishment and give rewards; ability to make preparations for perils
and cataclysms; respect; prescience; capacity to choose harmony and war and to exploit the frail
purposes of a foe; possession of an always grinning face; and recognition of customs charged
by matured people. The king should have high knowledge about the scriptures, texts, Vedas and
should be able to exert and use this knowledge when it is required. Manu and Kautilya also
placed a very high importance to the appointment of ministers and diplomats as they considered
that these people project and protect the ways of king, thus helping the king to achieve a unified
and a harmonious rule. Though these rights and duties pertain towards monarchy they still are
relevant in these times of technologies. The duties and rights of the king should also be
followed by the modern day democratic governments to ensure continuous power and a safe
rule which could also be enjoyed by the general public and not only by the government
officials.