INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

THE ARTHASHASTRA OF KAUTILYA:

STATE AND STATECRAFT
RESEARCH PAPER

NAME: ASHIMA MEHRA

ROLL NO- 20203811

SEMESTER AND YEAR- 5TH SEMESTER, 3RD YEAR

SUBJECT- B.A. (HONS) POLITICAL SCIENCE

ABSTRACT
Kautilya's Arthasastra is one of the most influential treatises on political science in Indian
history. This work covers almost every aspect of monarchical governance. Every being's goal in
Indian philosophy is to pursue dharma. The state allows citizens to practise their respective
dharmas and enjoy private property rights. The King is regarded as a protector of the dharma, but
not as its sole interpreter. There is a separation of secular and ecclesiastical power. The state has
many autonomous associations and guilds under its jurisdiction, and the resulting polycentric
arrangements limit the rise of absolute power. Arthasastra depicts a massive bureaucratic
structure, a complicated tax structure, and a complex intelligence system.

INTRODUCTION
In ancient India, republican governments were well established. At the time of Alexander of
Macedonia's invasion (4th century B.C.), there were many independent Ganas (republics) such as
Agrasrenies in the Indus valley, Kamboj in the west, Panchals in the north, and so on. This era
produced Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra. He was instrumental in defeating Alexander's
forces. Alexander's successful conquest of (part of) India, according to Kautilya, was due to the
absence of a strong centralized Indian empire. He was determined that history would not repeat
itself. As a result, the Mauryan empire, which he helped to establish, was centralized and very
different from the then-prevailing republican systems. As a result, his treatise - Arthasastra - only
addresses governance in a monarchical state.
Furthermore, Vedic philosophy emphasizes both the physical and spiritual aspects of the human
being. The paths of pravriti (enjoyment) and nivriti (renunciation) are seen as complementary
(Ghoshal, 1923). 'Rational sciences' such as mathematics were well developed in ancient India -
the concept of 'shunya' (zero) and the decimal system were invented by the Vedic civilization's
buddhijivi (those who make a living by using brain power - intellectuals).
Many ancient dharmic texts are based on the rationality ethic. Many Occidental scholars have
referred to Kautilya as the "Machiavelli of India" because his treatises, such as the Arthasastra,
advocate the application of reason to statecraft.

ORIGIN OF ARTHASHASTRA
Kautilya was born in the 'kutil gotra,' hence his name. He was known as Chanakya because he
was born in Chanaka and his father's name was also Chanaka (Rao, 1958). Kautilya's Arthasastra
is a collection of and commentary on texts on polity and statecraft that were available at the time.
Kautilya presented them in a coherent and systematic manner, refining them based on his vast
experience as Chief Minister in Chandragupta Maurya's court.
Furthermore, there is disagreement about who wrote Arthasastra. Many Occidental scholars
argue that Kautilya could not have written it because many of the concepts in the treatise were
only practised in later epochs. It has been suggested that Kautilya is simply a pseudo name for a
later author(s) associated with Kautilya's school of thought. These assertions are challenged by
Indian scholars, who point out that many of Kautilya's concepts date from the fourth century
B.C. (Shamasastry, 1915; 1967; Rao, 1958).
FRAMEWORK OF ARTHASHASTRA
The science (sastra) of wealth/polity is referred to as arthasastra (artha). This treatise is divided
into sixteen books that cover virtually every aspect of state administration - taxation, law,
diplomacy, military strategy, economics, bureaucracy, and so on. Arthasastra promotes a rational
ethic in the conduct of state affairs. The emphasis is on legal codification and uniformity across
the empire.
Knowledge is the foundation of good governance, and Arthasastra divides knowledge into four
categories:
1. Angkasi (philosophy). This is known as the "lamp of all sciences."
2. Trayi (the three Vedas - Sama, Rig and Yajur) (the three Vedas - Sama, Rig and Yajur).
The four classes (varnas) and four orders are established in these texts (ashrams).
3. Varta (economics, specifically agriculture, cattle breeding, and trade).
4. Dandanfti (science of government and politics).

CONCEPT OF THE STATE

The state is established to allow individuals to practise their dharma and thus progress toward
emancipation from the cycle of death and rebirth. The state of arajat (lawlessness) was despised
because it hampered the practise of dharma. Many ancient Vedic texts make reference to
MatsyaNyaya (Law of the Fish), which governs nature. This state is distinguished by the absence
of dharma and mamatava (private property rights).
The state, which wields coercive instruments (danda), is formed to pull society out of this
quagmire. Thus, the state facilitates two things: dharma practise and the bhog (enjoyment) of
private property rights.
Furthermore, the Vedic state can be viewed as "qualified monism," in which the autonomy and
diversity of the various social groups living within the state's boundaries were recognized (Rao
1958). Citizens had dual allegiances: to the state and to guilds/associations. These organizations
were formed on the basis of two principles: the military imperative (unity in strength) and the
principle of dharma (Rao, 1958). These bodies had clearly defined governance rules and a code
of conduct. They fiercely protected their autonomy, and the King could not infringe on their
customs and traditions. To ensure that the King and the associations did not overstep their
respective boundaries, the Superintendent of Accounts had to codify each association's history,
customs, and traditions (Rao, 1958).
The relationship between the individual body and the state, however, was not one of competition
or turf protection. Both bodies played a role in allowing the citizen to follow his dharma. As a
result, there was a mechanism to protect the individual from the larger association (majority
tyranny) and the association from the State (tyranny of the Leviathan).
The King was regarded as an embodiment of virtue and a defender of dharma. He, like any other
citizen, was governed by his dharma. As a result, if the King's actions contradicted the prevalent
notion of dharma, associations and/or individual citizens were free to question him. King was not
the only one who could interpret dharma. In fact, no specific institution (such as the
ecclesiastical courts) was vested with the authority to interpret dharma. Every individual was
deemed capable of interpreting it. This was an important factor in ensuring the Vedic state's non-
religious nature.
STATE’S ELEMENTS AND THE ROLE OF THE KING
Arthasastra conceptualizes the state to have seven elements (saptanga).
1. Swami (Monarch)
2. Amatya (Officials)
3. Janapada (Population and Territory)
4. Durga (Fort)
5. Kosa (Treasury)
6. Bala (Military)26
7. Surhit (Ally)

The King derived his power from three sources: Prabhushakti (the power of the army and the
treasury), Mantashakti (wise men's advice, specifically the Council of Ministers), and
Utsahshakti (the power of the people) (charisma). Kautilya believed that institutions (the Council
of Ministers) were more important than individuals (the King) in influencing the fate of the state.
Following the King was the Mantri Parishad (Council of Minister). The King was commanded to
consult with the Parishad on all matters, as it represented the society's distilled wisdom. Parishad
was divided into two sections: the inner cabinet and the outer cabinet. The Inner Cabinet
consisted of four members: the Chief Minister, Chief Priest, Military Commander, and Crown
Prince. The Crown Prince was included to ensure a smooth succession and continuity in the
event of an emergency. The membership of the Outer cabinet, on the other hand, was not fixed.
This body was almost always co-opted by the heads of the prominent guilds. This gave the
Parishad a representative character.
Kautilya praised the state and saw the office of Kingship as the embodiment of all legal and
moral authority associated with the state's institution. The King was an integral part of the social
order and, by definition, a defender of that order. However, the King was to regard himself as an
agent of the people and was required to follow his dharma as outlined in the Sastras. The
institution of Kingship was sacred, but not the person who held it (Sarkar, 1922).

DUTIES OF THE KING

Kautilya did not believe in the 'Divine Origin of the Monarch' theory. Monarchy, in his opinion,
was a human institution that needed to be run by a human being. However, because he was the
protector of the dharma of the entire society, the king was expected to be more than a mere
human being. He had to observe an exemplary conduct himself. He had no private life, and all of
his actions were scrutinized by the public.
The King had to follow his rayja dharma. This included a thorough knowledge of the four
branches of knowledge (Ghoshal,1923). The King was expected to display Atma vrata (self-
control) and for this he had to abandon the 'six enemies - kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha
(greed), mana (vanity), mada (haughtiness), and harsha (overjoy) (Kautilya:Book; Rao, 1958).
Though, the King had a fairly regimented daily routine. His day and night was divided into eight
nalikas (one and half hours) each. The King was assigned specific tasks for the specific nalika.
SYSTEM OF LAW
Kautilya did not consider law to be an expression of the people's free will. As a result, citizens
did not have sovereignty - the authority to make laws. Dharma (scared law), vyavhara
(evidence), charita (history and custom), and rajasasana (rule of law) were the four sources from
which laws were derived (edicts of the King). In the event of a conflict between the various laws,
dharma was supreme.
Rajasasana established the relationship between the three major social groups: citizen,
association, and state. The rajasasana specified the constitutional rules at the state level, but the
constitutional rules at the association level were to be decided by the members of the association.
Aside from that, Arthasastra outlines a system of civil, criminal, and commercial law.

BURREAUCRACY

To manage the Mauryan empire, Kautilya had created a vast and intricate network of
bureaucracy. This reflected the state's centralized nature as well. The bureaucracy was divided
into thirty divisions, each led by an Adhyaksha (Chiefs).
Kautilya saw the importance of the state providing public goods to strengthen trade and
commerce. Three of these goods were provided by the bureaucracy: the 'quality control
machinery,' the ‘system of currency,' and the 'weights and measures system.' Quality control was
a novel concept at the time. This suggests that the Mauryan empire had an active trading sector,
with discerning buyers (both domestic and exports).
Furthermore, bureaucrats were paid a set salary and were eligible for state-subsidized housing.
This exemplifies Kautilya's deep understanding of statecraft, as officials were expected to
compensate themselves by retaining a portion of revenue extracted from the people even in later
centuries (a kind of ad-valorem compensation). Because bureaucratic tenure was not hereditary,
the ad-valorem arrangement provided an incentive for the official to squeeze the tax payer as
much as possible. Given his experience as Chief Minister, Kautilya most likely recognized the
dangers of such an (ad valorem) arrangement and established a fixed pay compensation structure
for the bureaucracy.
Moreover, massive bureaucracy invariably leads to a principal-agent problem. Kautilya
attempted to address this issue through three methods: elaborately monitored standard operating
procedures (SOPs), spies/intelligence organization, and authority decentralization. SOPs were
supplemented by an intelligence organization that kept an eye on officials' corrupt practices.
Another measure used to keep the bureaucracy in check was the decentralization of authority,
which resulted in the empowerment of local guilds. As a result, bureaucrats had to contend with
an effective local power center that was aware of royal edicts and prevented the bureaucrat from
substituting his or her objective function for the royal edict.
CONCLUSION
Arthasastra is a detailed treatise on governance in a monarchical Vedic state. Kautilya
approached governance and statecraft with logic. He viewed the state and the office of kingship
as human artefacts. His human model was also extremely realistic.
Thus, Kautilya's theory provides a framework for developing a strategy that is still relevant after
so many years. The Arthashastra is a true collection of political wisdom. Kautilya advises the
political leadership to consolidate state power through internal crisis management and strategic
control of external relations. As a result, Arthashastra is a strategy concerned with
recommending practicable policies in any conceivable situation, rather than a treatise based on
general principles. True interpretation of the Arthashastra has the power to unearth timeless
grand strategy to achieve better peace or the continuation of an advantageous favourable
situation in the future.

REFERENCES

 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3513319
 https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR2001377.pdf
 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019423.pdf

THANK YOU