One Hundred Years of Kautilya’s Arthasastra

Chair: Dr S Kalyanaraman
External Discussants: Ambassador K P Fabian, Professor Navnita Chadha Behera and Col VMB Krishnan
Internal Discussants: Mr. Saurabh Mishra and Ms. Nupur Brahma

The central argument of this paper is that Kautilya, the ancient strategic thinker of India, has been neglected and not been given his due in the Indian strategic thinking. It seeks to revive the study of Kautilya’s Arthasastra and establish it in the contemporary security studies. The paper examines the discourse that has evolved through the last 100 years, since the Arthasastra was first discovered and translated. The paper attempts to find out the answers of the questions raised on the strategic culture in India as some academicians even go to the extent of declaring an absence of strategic culture in India. The paper tries to document and deal with almost all the scholarly controversies related to the Arthasastra during this period and relates a whole tradition of political and strategic thinkers (makers of the kingly science) like Manu, Brihaspati, Sukra, Parasara, Vysas and Chanakya as recognised in the Panchtantra.

The difficulty in studying Kautilya and his times are due to the cartographic gaps, poor state and progression of maps and the controversies about the age and identity of the author. The contemplations about the age of the work vary between 4th century BCE and 3rd Century ACE. There are different views about the authorship of the Arathasastra as well: One holds that Kautilya was a single person who wrote it by himself and the other claims it to be a compiled “work by authors under the rubric of Kautilya.” A few scholars find the traces of all strategies and diplomacy within the Arthasastra while others allege that its importance is magnified and overstated.

It is interesting to note that Kautilya’s four upayas (devices)—sama, dana, bheda, danda—to achieve the goals of diplomacy have a remarkable similarity with Morganthau’s sections in his realist theory about divide and rule, compensation, armaments, and alliances. The paper discusses Kautilya’s theories of the seven elements of state (prakritis), six measures of foreign policy (sadgunya), the circle of states (rajamandala), the kinds of conquest (vijaya) and war (yudha).

Countries of Southeast Asia have also been influenced by the Kautilyan concepts of mandala, cakra and chakravartin. In 1929, Herbert H. Gowen traced how in course of time niti or the old Indian rulers as embodied in treatises, became a system coveted and adopted by foreign potentates. The spread of the Indian ideas took a long route through nitisastra, panchtantra, Hitopdeca, Qalila and Dimnah and Beast Fables to pass into Persia, Arabia, North Africa, Spain and Provence.

The paper elucidates nine reasons for the neglect of the study of Kautilya:

• A-historic nature of the Indian civilisation and oral tradition,
• Lack of proper battle accounts available from Indian sources and over-reliance on Greek and Graeco-Roman sources,
• Absence of holistic teaching and education and domination of a western discourse,
• Kautilya’s suspended status between schools of nationalists and Marxists,
• Lack of policy focus and absence of serious study in think tanks,
• Lack of language skills and preservation of texts,
• Kautilya not being a soldier like Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini or Liddell Hart,
• Interpretation by antisocial elements and narrow mindedness,
• Misunderstanding brahmin scholars, over exaggeration of brahmanism and perception of male chauvinism.

Misconceptions exist about Kautilya and his statecraft. Kautilya is looked upon as Machiavellian which distorts the correct picture. The difference between Machiavelli and Kautilya is regarding the subject matter of their works and methodology. The former was narrower limiting himself to the unification of Italy, leaving the questions of economy aside, while the latter had a holistic view of the vijigishu: consolidating the empire in almost the entire Indian subcontinent.

Condemnation of Kautilya as an unethical teacher is due to the ignorance about his work. The image of Chanakya as a cunning brahmin is stereotypical in nature. Some scholars consider Kautilya’s work as immoral and repudiated by the Indians themselves while Lankavatarasutra refers to Kautilya as rsi and Somadeva refers him as nyayavid. The reasons for such diverse image might be in the imaginations of some playwrights influenced by their contemporary contexts. The paper finds Kautilya too serious a business to be left to linguists or historians alone. Most of the work on Kautilya lies in the category where the scholar does not read the text but keenly quotes from what some commentator had said superficially.

Misquoting Kautilya does more harm than good. One main reason for him being misunderstood is the use of Kautilyan terms as a simplistic jargon. The paper gives instances of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Kautilya. Blanket use of the mandala makes it the most misunderstood term as people contemplate and extrapolate it to any extent they want. It is also said that the matsya nyaya and the mandala theory of Kautilya’s Arthasastra are the two evils.

Researching Kautilya is a level playing field for all as it is not limited to historians only. There are no classified documents or files to be consulted and unearthed. This knowledge lies scattered across the domains of archaeology, philosophy, linguistics, history, political science and religious texts. Public perception about Kautilya is based mainly on folklore, mythology and limited on readings and research.

This paper suggests that the Kautilya moment has now arrived. The care and preservation of ancient archives is essential. The science, politics and statecraft of the Arthasastra need to be preserved and practiced in ways in which Indian classical music has survived and thrived. There is a need for state patronage, sponsorship and financial backing for the study of Arthasastra. Research and training for this purpose must be undertaken and encouraged at all the levels.

Major points of discussion and suggestions to the author:

• Under the influence of Gandhian values and Nehru’s, thought there was no space for Kautilya to make his mark.
• Kautilya is also considered a part of the Indian philosophical system. As the Indian ways of knowing the reality has a non-dualistic mode of thinking, Kautilya goes beyond matsya nyaya. He elucidates how to deal with realpolitik while actually looking at the norms and tries to give ways where anarchy can be overcome.
• It is difficult to understand Kautilya because military history and historical sociology are not taught in the Indian universities at all. A problem of language exists in the study of Arthasastra as the strategists are disconnected from Sanskrit. We also need to maintain a critical space with regards to the Anglo-American influence while keeping in mind that we generally impose ipso facto the modern jargon and terminology on ancient contexts.
• Kautilya’s work should not be taken as the Bible. Reading of original translation is must to avoid distortions and we should read Chanakya not only because we aspire to become a great power but also because the world would be a more peaceful place by understanding him.
• As we generally restrict ourselves to the Indian heartland while digging into the history of Indian strategic culture, the outlook (caricature) of Kautilya also inhibits his acceptability.
• We need to know more about how the Arthasastra was followed in Kautilya’s time. Arthasastra requires a rereading in the context of modern state and democracy.

Report prepared by Saurabh Mishra, Research Assistant IDSA.