Project report on

KAUTILYA: MANDAL THEORY

"Every neighboring state is. an enemy and the enemy's.
enemy is. a. friend."
Submitted. in. the. partial fulfillment of. requirement for.
the award of. the degree. of
BA (Hons)
Political science
Submitted. By : Gautami (201910204150017)

Under the supervision of

Dr. Juhi Srivastava

(Department of humanities)
Shri Ramswaroop memorial university Lucknow subject
code. : BHU6504
CONTENT
 Certificat. Page : 3
 Acknowledgement. Page:4
 Review literature. Page:5. To 9
 Introduction page :10 to 16
 Mandal theory Page: 17 to 24
 International relations. Page :25 to 28
 Relivence in Today's world. Page : 28 to 33
 Reference of kautilya In India's policy Page : 33 to 35
 Comparison between kautilya and Machiavelli. Page : 35 to 42
 Conclusion. Page : 43
 Reference. Page : 44 to 46
 Bibliography. Page : 47 to 50
 certificate

This is. to certify that the. project report on kAUTILYA :

MANDAL. THEORY. submitted by. Gautami to. DR. Juhi
Srivastava Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
Lucknow . It is. a record of bonafide project carried.
out by. her under the. supervision and guidance. and
is. award. of the degree of awards. of. the B.A. (hons).
Political. science. of the institute.

Dr. Juhi Srivastava. DR.VIJAYA SETHI

(SUBJECT EXPERT) (DEAN ACADEMICS)

Shri Ramswaroop Memorial. University,. Lucknow
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to thank the administration of Department of Humanities, Shri Ramswaroop
Memorial university, Lucknow for providing us a project so that we can work on research about
kautilya : Mandal theory and learn new facts related to similar after all B.A (Hons) is all about
awareness. Now, I would like to thank our concern faculty supervisor Mrs. Juhi Srivastava who
provided her precious time to us in teaching and making us aware of the basic concepts based
on the project stated as Students’ life style survey in Lucknow. Being a faculty, she helped a lot
in conducting the survey and making the report. At last I would like to thank almighty god, our
parents, friends and everyone who believed in us that we can complete this project successfully
and who so ever helped us.

Signature:

Name: GAUTAMI

Roll No: 201910204150017

LITERATURE REVIEW
Kautaliya's Arthshastra (322-298BC) is brilliant and comprehensive treatise on all aspects of
international relations, intelligence and good governance. He always had a wish that his king
should become the world conqueror, and hence this mastermind was the chief mentor and a
minister who helped first emperor of India Chandragupta Maurya to extend his kingdom to
whole of India and beyond up to Afghanistan. The political science propagated by him was
referred as 'Rajadharma' (Righteousness of the King) and 'Nitishastra' (Science of Ethics) with
ethical course of conduct as hallmark of internal and external policy of the state.

There is little documented historical information about Chanakya: most of what is known about
him comes from semi-legendary accounts. Thomas Trautmann identifies four distinct accounts
of the ancient Chanakya-Chandragupta katha (legend

Version of legend Example texts

Buddist version Mahavamsa and its commentary Vamsatthappakasini (Pali language)

Jain version Jain version Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandr

Kashmiri version Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva, Brihat-Katha-Manjari by Ksemendra

Vishakhadatta's version Mudrarakshasa, a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta

 In all the four versions, Chanakya feels insulted by the Nanda king, and vows to destroy him.
After dethroning the Nanda, he installs Chandragupta as the new king.

Buddhist version
The legend of Chanakya and Chandragupta is detailed in the Pali-language Buddhist chronicles
of Sri Lanka. It is not mentioned in Dipavamsa, the oldest of these chronicles.The earliest
Buddhist source to mention the legend is Mahavamsa, which is generally dated between fifth
and sixth centuries CE. Vamsatthappakasini (also known as Mahvamsa Tika), a commentary on
Mahavamsa, provides some more details about the legend. Its author is unknown, and it is
dated variously from sixth century CE to 13th century CE.Some other texts provide additional
details about the legend; for example, the Maha-Bodhi-Vamsa and the Atthakatha give the
names of the nine Nanda kings said to have preceded Chandragupta.

Jain version
The Chandragupta-Chanakya legend is mentioned in several commentaries of the Shvetambara
canon. The most well-known version of the Jain legend is contained in the Sthaviravali-Charita
or Parishishta-Parvan, written by the 12th-century writer Hemachandra. Hemachandra's
account is based on the Prakrit kathanaka literature (legends and anecdotes) composed
between the late first century CE and mid-8th century CE. These legends are contained in the
commentaries (churnis and tikas) on canonical texts such as Uttaradhyayana and Avashyaka
Niryukti.

Thomas Trautmann believes that the Jain version is older and more consistent than the
Buddhist version of the legend.

Kashmiri version
Brihatkatha-Manjari by Kshemendra and Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva are two 11th-century
Kashmiri Sanskrit collections of legends. Both are based on a now-lost Prakrit-language
 Brihatkatha-Sarit-Sagara. It was based on the now-lost Paishachi-language Brihatkatha by
Gunadhya. The Chanakya-Chandragupta legend in these collections features another character,
named Shakatala (IAST: Śakaṭāla).

Mudrarakshasa version
Mudrarakshasa ("The signet ring of Rakshasa") is a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta. Its date is
uncertain, but it mentions the Huna, who invaded northern India during the Gupta period.
Therefore, it could not have been composed before the Gupta era. It is dated variously from the
late fourth century to the eighth century. The Mudrarakshasa legend contains narratives not
found in other versions of the Chanakya-Chandragupta legend. Because of this difference,
Trautmann suggests that most of it is fictional or legendary, without any historical basis.

Identification with Kauṭilya or Vishnugupta

The ancient Arthashastra has been traditionally attributed to Chanakya by a number of scholars. The
Arthashastra identifies its author as Kauṭilya, a gotra or clan name, except for one verse that refers to
him by the personal name of Vishnugupta. Kauṭilya is presumably the name of the author's gotra
(clan).One of the earliest Sanskrit literatures to identify Chanakya with Vishnugupta explicitly was the
Panchatantra

K. C. Ojha proposes that the traditional identification of Vishnugupta with Kauṭilya was caused by a
confusion of the text's editor and its originator. He suggests that Vishnugupta was a redactor of the
original work of Kauṭilya.Thomas Burrow suggests that Chanakya and Kauṭilya may have been two
different people.

Literary works

Two books are attributed to Chanakya: Arthashastra,and Chanakya Niti, also known as
Chanakya Neeti-shastra. The Arthashastra was discovered in 1905 by librarian Rudrapatna
Shamasastry in an uncatalogued group of ancient palm-leaf manuscripts donated by an
unknown pandit to the Oriental Research Institute Mysore.
The Arthashastra, which discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations,
and war strategies in detail. The text also outlines the duties of a ruler.[unreliable source?]
Some scholars believe that Arthashastra is actually a compilation of a number of earlier texts
written by various authors, and Chanakya might have been one of these authors (see above).

Chanakya Niti, which is a collection of aphorisms, said to be selected by Chanakya from the
various shastras.

INTRODUCTION
 The presented project is analysis of the one of the most important theories given by Kautilya,
which is the Mandala theory, which deals with the interstate relations and the foreign policies
of that period. Kautilya always remained with a viewpoint that there could be any harmonious
relationship between two neighboring states.

Kautilya wanted the expansion of the empire with harsh measures. When one explores over the
Kautilya’s discussion over his domestic policies, he will find that Kautilya's discussions are of war
and diplomacy.

His Diplomacy was just another weapon used in the prolonged warfare that was always either
occurring or being planned for. But yet, his analyses are fascinating and far-reaching, such as his
wish to have his king become a world conqueror (here, one needs to understand that by
Kautilya’s world, he meant to conquer that land which the ancient Indians believed were the
natural borders of India. In other words, the land bordered in the north by the Himalayas down
to the Indian Ocean, and from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal.)

His evaluation of which kingdoms are natural allies and which are inevitable enemies, his
willingness to make treaties that he knew he would break, his doctrine of silent war or a war of
assassination and contrived revolt against an unsuspecting king, his approval of secret agents
who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them, his view of women as weapons of
war, his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, his
employment of the spread of disinformation, and his humane treatment of conquered soldiers
and subjects.

KAUTILYA ON WAR:

“Kautilya did not say to himself, "Prepare for war, but hope for
peace," but instead, "Prepare for war, and plan to conquer.”

As a political realist, Kautilya assumed that every nation acts to maximize power and self-
interest, and therefore moral principles or obligations have little or no force in actions among
nations. While it is good to have an ally, the alliance will last only as long as it is in that ally's as
well as one's own self-interest, because "An ally looks to the securing of his own interests in the
event of simultaneity of calamities and in the event of the growth of the enemy's power."
Whether one goes to war or remains at peace depends entirely upon the self-interest of or
advantage to, one's kingdom: "War and peace are considered solely from the point of view of
profit."One keeps an ally not because of good will or moral obligation, but because one is
strong and can advance ones own self-interest as well as the self-interest of the ally, for "when
one has an army, one's ally remains friendly or (even) the enemy becomes friendly." As said
once by Chanakya, “There is some selfinterest behind every friendship.

There is no Friendship without self-interests. This is a bitter truth.” Because nations always act
in their political, economic and military self-interest, even times of peace have the potential to
turn abruptly into times of war, allies into enemies, and even enemies into allies.

In the world of international politics, it is only "natural" that nations interact with each other
through "dissension and force." A political realist typically argues that there will always be
conflict in international relations and, in effect, rule by the strongest. Kautilya, in the boldest of
his promises, claimed that one who knows his science of politics can conquer the world, that
"One possessed of personal qualities, though ruling over a small territory. Conversant with (the
science of) politics, does conquer the entire earth, never loses." There is no modesty here.
Kautilya's science brings an abundance of wealth and details correct strategies in politics and
war. With this science anyone can succeed: "And winning over and purchasing men of energy,
those possessed of might, even women, children, lame and blind persons, have conquered the
world." Kautilya did not see this conquest as something unjust. A king who carries out his
duties, rules according to law, metes out only just punishment, applies the law equally "to his
son and his enemy," and protects his subjects not only goes "to heaven" but "would conquer
the earth up to its four ends." Whereas Kautilya did not talk of glory, he thinks of something
one might call "greatness," but this would come only with social justice and the morally correct
ordering of the world. The king, "after conquering the world, should enjoy it divided into varnas
and asramas [Hindu stages of life] in accordance with his own duty."

In his section on foreign policy, Kautilya wrote a startling sentence: "Of war, there is open war,
concealed war and silent war." Open war is obvious, and concealed war is what we call
guerrilla warfare but silent war is a kind of warfare with another kingdom in which the king and
his ministers—and unknowingly, the people—all act publicly as if they were at peace with the
opposing kingdom, but all the while secret agents and spies are assassinating important leaders
in the other kingdom, creating divisions among key ministers and classes, and spreading
propaganda and disinformation. According to Kautilya, "Open war is the most righteous type of
war and it does include all types of concealed warfare; that which concerns secret practices and
instigations through secret agents is the mark of silent war." In silent warfare, secrecy is
paramount, and, from a passage quoted earlier, the king can prevail only by "maintaining
secrecy when striking again and again." This entire concept of secret war was apparently
original with Kautilya.

One thing that one should keep in his mind while reading kautilya’s texts on war is that when
Kautilya was describing a foreign policy not of a great empire like that of the Mauryas, but of
small warring states in incessant conflict, such as India experienced before the Mauryan
Empire. Kautilya probably assumed that peaceful empires cannot last forever, and that conflict
among smaller states is more common in history. Thus, India does not want peace as it follows
the idealism of Kautilya.

MANDALA THEORY:

Your neighbor is your natural enemy and the neighbor’s neighbor is

your friend”

This was the basic thought behind Kautilya’s Mandala Theory. And it is the very frist thought
that comes to one’s mind when we read the texts of kautilya. Mandala is a Sanskrit word
whisch means ‘circles’.
 Mandala theory of foreign policy, is based on the geographical assumption that the immediate
neighbour state is most likely to be an enemy (real or potential) and a state next to the
immediate neighbour is likely to be ones friend, after a friendly state comes an unfriendly state
(friend of the enemy state) and next to that a friendly state (friend of a friendly state) and so on
i.e., "With respect to the middle king [he himself], the third and the fifth constituents are
friendly elements. The second, the fourth, and the sixth are unfriendly elements." However he
also recognized the existence of neutral and mediating states. To understand it easily, imagine a
series of states to one's west, and then number them starting with oneself. States numbered 1,
3, 5, 7, and so on will likely be friends, whereas states 2, 4, 6, 8, and so on will probably be
enemies. (The same thing can be done with con centric circles, which would look more like a
mandala, but it is difficult to envision these circles as states.) Kautilya put this basic principle in
a number of different ways, but most simply as, "One with immediately proximate territory is
the natural enemy."

The Mandala concept is one in which there are circles of friends and foes with the central point
being the King and his State. This embraces twelve kings in the vicinity and he considers the
kingdoms as neighbors, the states which are the enemies neighbors are his enemies’ friends
and the next circle of states are his friends. He also believes that the states which are his
neighbors and are also neighbors of his enemies are neutral and should always be treated with
respect. He believes that this circle is dynamic and the King should strive to be expanding his
central position and reduce the power of the other kings in the vicinity. He also proposes to
build alliances with states which are two degrees away from the center to create a balance of
power. The mandala, as comprising 12 types of kings/states, it is classified as follows:

1. The would-be conqueror, at the centre of the mandala. (Vijigisha)

2. The enemy whose territory borders on that of the would-be conqueror, i.e., the hostile
neighbour.

3. The ally’s whose territory lies immediately beyond that of the hostile neighbour.

4. The enemy’s ally who is the neighbour of one’s won ally.

5. The ally’s ally who is territorially distant. (Vijigishu)

6. The ally of the enemy’s ally who is also territorially distant.

7. The rear of the would-be conqueror, i.e., rearward enemy

8. Rearward friend

9. Friend of the rearward enemy

10. Friend of friend is the rearward friend

11. A neutral king/state neighboring both the would-be conqueror and his/its enemy but is
stronger than both.

12. The king is very indifferent towards all other kings/states but is more powerful than the
would-be conqueror, his enemy and the neutral king/ state.

In a system of mandala, Kautilya advocated six-fold policy to interact with the neighbours,
which included co-existence, neutrality, alliance, double policy, march and war. To achieve this
he advised the king to resort to five tactics: conciliation, gift and bribery, dissention, deceit and
pretence, open attack or war. As such on the question of treaty and alliance, he suggests: “A
King should not hesitate to break any friendship or alliances that are later found to be
disadvantageous.”

In the whole spectrum of Mandal, the Vijigishu functions as a sort of balance of power by
asserting his own supremacy. It is assumed that the two adjacent states are normally hostile
and consequently two states with another intervening between them would be friendly, being
common enemies of the latter. The neutral is the strongest power in the neighborhood. The
intermediary in intermediate in strength between the neutral and the other powers.
ENEMIES ACCORDING TO KAUTILYA:
Potential enemies were those to whom one showed a friendly face. They might be your ally or
there might be no particular relationship between your country and theirs. But eventually, they
would become enemies or so. Kautilya assume, After all, his politics were aimed at conquering
the world, which can only be done by taking control of all other territories, most of which will
fight to retain control.

Let us assume that Country 2 is an enemy too powerful to take on immediately. In such a case,
it would be in the king’s best interest to be friendly toward them until they grew weaker. But
Kautilya didn’t suggest the king sit passively by and wait for this to happen. Instead, it was his
duty to make it happen. And, since states always act in their own self-interest, moral principles
and obligations carry little or no weight in the actions between states.

“A neighboring prince possessed of the excellences of an enemy is the

foe; one in calamity is vulnerable; one without support or with weak
support is fit to be exterminated; in the reverse case, fit to be
harassed or weakened. These are the different types of enemies.”
When Kautilya described exterminating an enemy, he meant killing only the leaders. He
believed that the best policy toward enemy soldiers and citizens was to treat them well…and
then recruit them. A conquered people are much more likely to look favorably on the
conqueror if he acts benevolently toward them. Act despotically and you lose the support of
the people.

In this, Kautilya was unique. Kautilya pointed out that “If weak in might, a king should endeavor
to secure the welfare of his subjects. The countryside is the source of all undertakings. From
them comes might.” For his day, this was a revolutionary statement. India was divided into four
classes: kshatriyas or the warrior and ruling class, brahmins or priests; vaishyas meaning
farmers or merchants; and shūdras, agricultural laborers. Kautilya appears to have had little use
for brahmins, since he wrote “by prostration, an enemy may win over Brahmana troops.” But
he was taken by the energy, strength, and numbers of the shūdras. He does seem to have
preferred an army of kshatriyas – the Greek ambassador to Chandragupta’s court notes that
nearly one-fifth of the population were of this class – but in times of emergency, he would
prefer the balance of the army come from the two lower classes of society. He also believed
that units should be composed of “men from the same region, caste or profession”, since an
army composed of brothers and friends fighting for each other is more difficult to defeat.

It is better to attack an enemy that is disunited rather than one in which the citizens have
organized themselves into “bands.” Therefore, the first obstacle to overcome is to breakdown
the enemy’s trust and reliance on each other. For this task, Kautilya advocated spies and secret
agents who could exploit the divisions within a country and hopefully widen such gaps. Every
country, according to Kautilya, has four types of disgruntled citizens: the enraged, the
frightened, the greedy, and the proud. Secret agents should be employed to fan the flames of
their discontent. The king should win over the seducible by “means of conciliation and gifts and
those not seducible by means of dissension and force.”

He sought to provoke wars between neighboring states and their allies, which would weaken
both. At the very least, to drive a wedge between them, leaving one possibly weak enough for
“extermination.” For countries that tried to remain neutral, he suggested ways of provoking a
potential war between them and a neighboring state. Then, should the neutral nation seek his
king’s help, it could be “placed under obligations.” Here again, Kautilya shows no moral qualms
about breaking such obligations, for “that ally who might do harm or who, though capable,
would not help in times of troubles, he should exterminate him, when trustingly, he comes
within his reach.”