Kautilya

• Importance of Kautilya’s
Arthashastra
• Prominent ideas of Arthashastra
• State of relations between two countries
• Mandal Siddhaant
• Shadgunya Neeti (6 gold Policies)
• Relevance of Rajamandala and Shadguna
Siddhanta
• Type of War
• Kautilya’s views on corruption
• Compare Kautilya and Machiavelli
 Importance of Kautilya’s Arthashastra
Kautilya defines State craft as Arthashastra ‘Arth’ denotes material well – being according
to him, the most important objective of the king is the secure the material well-being of his
people.

In his words: “Material well-being is supreme, attainment of all other goals Dharm, Kama,
Moksh depends on material well being”.

In ancient times, land was the main source of securing material well – being. Hence, the
main idea of Arthashastra was how to acquire the land
• It is material for a state to go for acquiring land.
• The 1st land to be acquired is the land of Neighbour,
• Hence Neighbour ae Natural Enemies. Hence, the relation between 2 states are the
Relations of war.
• Thus, Arthashastra deals with ART of War like SUN TZU, the Chinese strategist planning,
Balance of power, geopolitics
Commonalities between Sun Tzu and Kautilya on Warfare
Arthashastra can be considered as the “ First textbook in geopolitics”

Geopolitics – Science of Capturing land.

• According to concept of geopolitics is an organism like any organism, state has to grow. If state does not grow / expand ,
state will perish/decay

It is unfortunate that policy makers in India have overlooked the wisdom found in Arthashashtra.

However, since the beginning of 21st century, with HINDU RIGHTIST PARTY coming to power, there is
a change in the approach of South Block. We are rediscovering the ancient Indian wisdom.
Prominent ideas of Arthashastra

State of relations
Mandal
between two Saptanga theory
Siddhaant
countries

Shadgunya Neeti
4 ulpayas Type of wars
(6 gold Policies)
State of relations between two countries
According to Kautilya, the relations 2 states are relations of WAR, where the
strength of Lion prevails.

Thus Kautilya is a realist who believes that inter- state relations are the struggle for
power.

According to Realist wisdom, interstate relations or international politics is a state

of war. Nations are either in the war or in the preparation for war. Hence in such
situation, state can rely only on Power.

Kautilya belongs to the School of “offensive realism”. He believes in Power

realisation rather than defence. For them “offence is the best defence”
 Mandal Siddhaant
Raja Dharma – Kshatriya Dharma (i.e.) War after coronation, King has to
start for expedition.
• In ancient India, there was tradition of different YAGNAS
• Example: Aswameda, Yogna; Rajasuya Yogna (after victory)
• According to Kautilya, King should have the desire to become “Chakravarthi Samrat”. He
addresses the king as ‘VIJIGISHU’ cone who aspires for victory

Mandal Siddhaanth is based on the concept of Geopolitics.

• According to Geopolitics, State is organism. Organism has to grow for that, it has to expand
• If it does not expands, it will Perish
• Thus states are expansionists by Nature
Neutral status:
• It is in context of war. If other countries accept the status of nay country as neutral, then that country has to give
equal access to its territory to both parties in war.
• Example: Nepal aspires for Neutral status. Nepali’s demand is against India’s national interest. If UN recognises
Nepal as neutral, in case of INDIA – CHINA war, both will have access to its territory. At present, only India can
use its territory during war under the agreement – 1950
• According to Kautilya, King should try to bring Neutrals in favour

MADHAYANA (Buffer Status)

• They are smaller states / terrible between 2 Major Powers.
• Their purpose is to avoid 2 major powers coming into state of direct confrontation.
• Example: Nepal is ideal Buffer zone between INDIA & CHINA.
• According to Kautilya, king should try to bring buffer state in his favour.
• Example: India has brought Nepal under its control by 1950 agreement however, India lost strategic advantage
when CHINA occupied TIBET. TIBET was also an ideal Buffer Zone.

Max Weber: Kautilya is more Machiavellian than Machiavelli’s Mach’s prince is harmless
compared to Kautilya king. Mach didn’t write explicit things.
 Shadgunya Neeti (6 gold Policies)
Vijigishu can adopt following options depending on situation.
• Sandhi (treaty) - if enemy is strong, go for Sandhi example: Shimla
Agreement
• Vighra – Breack the Sandhi when you become strong
• Aasana (to sit ) – stationing of forces near enemy territory – Build pressure
• Yana (Movement) – exercises near enemy territory
• Samashriya (objective) – Join hands with those who have similar objectives
Example: QUAD (to contain CHINA)
• Dvaidhbhava (Dual policy) – Friendship with one, enmity with other don’t go
for war at 2 fronts at same time, instead make friendship with one enemy for
the time being.
01. Sandhi
• Sandhi (making peace with strong enemy) has been advised for a weaker nation with strong
enemy.
• When you enemy is stronger than you, don’t confront with him and rather make peace on
terms and conditions of your enemy {i.e. surrender troops, treasury or territory}.
• Sandhi will thwart the strong enemy and will give enough time to get strong enough to
overthrow the strong enemy.
• Thus, this policy is based on “opportunism” and seeks time to become strong and wait for
enemy to get weaker.

02. Vigraha
• Vigraha (policy of hostility) has been advised for stronger nation with relatively weaker enemy.
• There can be two dimensions of policy of hostility viz. Defensive and Offensive. Kautilya says
that policy of Vigraha is advisable only when you are sure that you should be either repel
attack of enemy or are strong enough to ruin enemy or seize his territories (in such case go
ahead with Yana).
• In this policy, Kautilya has hinted some kind of cost-benefit analysis and says that if cost
appears more than benefit, then Sandhi is preferred over Vigraha.
03. Asana
• The Asana is basically a stance of keeping quite. It is to wait for enemy to get weaker
either by plunging itself in some difficulties or getting involved in war at some other
front.
• Asana also includes secret efforts to weaken the enemy or some kind of proxy war in
modern terms.
04. Yana
• Yana {March or Expedition} is direct manifestation of a policy of Vigraha and is to be
followed when you are sure that you shall ruin the enemy and win over him.
05. Sansraya
• Sansraya means seeking shelter with another king. If a king is weak and threatened to
be attacked by a powerful enemy, it’s better to seek protection from another King or
another place / fort etc.
• This policy corresponds to status of Protégé in modern sense.
06. Dvaidhibhava
• Dvaidhibhava refers to the double policy of Sandhi with one king and Vigraha with
another at a time.
• It is suggested for a King who is strong enough to fight but may not win without
getting additional strength of an ally.
• Apart from the above Shadgunas, Kautilya has mentioned four tactics to overcome
the opposition viz. Saman (Conciliation), Dama (Gifts), Bheda (Dissension) and
Danda (Force).
 Relevance of Rajamandala and Shadguna Siddhanta
In Arthashastra, Kautilya has made arguments about power, governance, statecraft etc.
without any reference to any religion or divinity, which makes him eligible as true
founder of what we call realpolitik.

However, above description makes it very clear that Kautilya suggests a state to act in
order to enhance its power and self-interest. There does not seem to be any moral /
ethical or religious obligation in his policy.

War and peace are solely on basis of profit. Many criticize this policy of Kautilya as
ruthless realpolitik, intrigue, deceptive and immoral.

Despite of criticism, the policy holds relevance because Kautilya said something which
has always been actually practiced by states everywhere.
 Type of War
Kautilya
mentions 3 PARAKRAM YUDDHA – Direct /
major open war
types of
war. Type KOOT YUDDHA – Guerrilla war
of war
depends
on
situation of TUSHNIM YUDDHA – Proxy war
VIJIGISHU.
Saptanga Siddhaanth (Sapta Prikriti)
It explains the 7 LIMBS of the state,
which also means 7 elements of
sovereignty.

It is an example of ORGANIC THEORY

OF STATE.

Kautilya takes SYSTEMIC VIEW OF

STATE.
01. King: king is the Nabhi of state centre

• It is difficult to replace a personality. King plays the most important role.

• If king is strong & other elements of sovereignty are weak, the strong &
smart king can convert the elements of weakness into elements of
strength
• If other elements are strong but if king is weak, it will lead to overall
weakness.
Though king is central, yet Kautilya writes that a single wheel cannot the chariot. It
means king cannot run the state alone but will require help of other. Thus Kautilya
emphasizes that king should not be arrogant & give adequate recognition to other
elements. State is a system of interdependence. He also reminds the king that
kingship is a duty – Dharma.
02. Amatyas (Senior ministers)
• They are mostly Brahmins.They most important among them in the AMBASSADOR, who is
the representative of king/state
• King should choose him very carefully. He should be trusted person & well versed in
Shastras.
• He should be handsome, He suggests that king should have Atleast 3 amities. 2 can
conspire against, even them one will stay with king
• King should have constant vigil on amatyas King can challenges the power of king.
• He even suggest king should keep on testing Integrity of Amatyas from time to time.
• He gives different suggestion, King can send his spy to amatya who can tell that queen is on
love with amatya & is waiting him at palace & in case amatya plans to kill the king, queen
will provide all help.
03. Durg : Fort
• Mauryan Empire is known for different types of forts. Kautilya mentions about forts on hill, water,
deserts.
• Fort are the symbols of Defensive & offensive capabilities of state. Hence king should be
constriction fort.

04. JANPAD:
• Places where common man lives, operates, and conducts Business & various activities. It is very
important as it provides ECONOMIC resources.

05. Bala : Military strength

• According to him, army should be comprised of Kshatriyas. He believes in hereditary basis of
recruitment.
• However, if need arises, other varnas can also be incorporated. Even w.r.t. king, Kautilya is not
particular about varna.
• He mentions that king can be of any varna but preferably Kshatriya
06. KOSHA: treasury.
• It should be sufficient to the extent that not only the king is able to fulfil
his routine obligations, he is able to meet any sort of emergency.(War,
natural calamity)

07. MITRA : ALLY

• Friends only have symbolic importance. As there is no permanent friends/
enemy & it is difficult to identity who is real friend/ who is pretending)
• They are symbol of strength of King. Everyone wants to be the friends of
the strong. Hence if a country starts loosing friends to enemy, it is a
serious concern example: Maldives going to China, also SL, NEPAL
• In politics, perception of strength is crucial
 Relevance of Saptang theory in mandal Siddhanth
Before starting expedition, VIJIGISHU has to calculate the strength of the enemies as well as his own. The 7
dements are the determinants of power.

King has to make assessment of 12x7 = 8A elements of sovereignty (12 kings x 7 elements) to take
calculated risk Mandals.

Kautilya’s Statecraft on internal administration.

Internal & external all interdependent.

Even for internal admin, Kautilya advices the use of spies to check rebellion.

Kautilya has given special emphases on problems of Corruption on administration

 Kautilya’s views on corruption
Corruption is inevitable part of administration.

According to him ‘henry on the tongue – It is not possible not to taste it’ public officials
handle so much resource that they themselves do not realise when they have
committed the act of corruption i.e. Embezzlement of Public funds.

In his words, ‘fish swimming in water will itself not realize when it has drank the water’

Even when corruption is inevitable, yet it is not desirable because it makes state weak
internally & externally.

Corruption weakens the capacity of the state to achieve the material welfare of its
people. This weakens the morale of PPL.
The biggest problem is detection of corruption. According to him, it is easy to detect the
movement of birds flying in the sky but it is not easy to detect when the officials have
committed corruption Kautilya mentions difference ways in which officials commit
corruption. In his words, ‘There are 40 ways of embezzleent’.

Example:
• Officials can play with weights & measures
• Officials can take money out from treasury but enter it later in the account book
• They may sell resources at a higher price but enter lower price in the accounts
• They may take money from public fund for personal use without entering (Hence we need CAG)

Though, Kautilya recognizes the difficulty, it does not mean that steps should not be
taken for minimising corruption. He gives following suggestion:
• Right sizing the bureaucracy
• Transfer the official before he understands loopholes in office
• Give security & rewards to the whistle blowers (Soochapas)
He suggest to punish the entire chain & not just official
• Punish the person who gives bribe (Dayak)
• Punish the person who receives bribe (Pratigraha)
• Punish who keeps the money (Nibhayak)
• He suggest for PUBLIC HUMILIATION of corrupt official.
• Reward the hones officers.
• Compensate the person who has suffered because of official’s corruption
 Compare Kautilya and Machiavelli

Pandit Nehru in his book DISCOVERY OF INDIA has mentioned Kautilya as Indian Machiavelli.

Upinder Kaur in her recent book titled POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN ANCIENT INDIA suggests that ideally
Machiavelli should have been called Italian Kautilya.

Scholars like Winternitz, Bottazi have traced the roots of realism in Kautilya along with Thucydides.
Machiavelli is also realist.

Kautilya and Machiavelli differ in time and space yet there are remarkable similarities between the two
scholars. Both had similar concerns. Both were concerned about the state of motherland.

Both were fearful of motherland being vulnerable to external invasions. Both are realists. Both give advices
on the statecraft. Both go for the separation between ends and means.

If Machiavelli suggests that in politics ends justify the means, Kautilya suggests, Sama, Dama, Danda,
Bheda.
Both allow the use of religion in the interest of the state.

Both favour imperialist foreign policy. Both are concerned with the corruption
within the state.

Both give similar advices on the statecraft. Both suggests that the king should rule
with the iron hand. Both expect king to be the symbol of knowledge and sacrifice.

The actions of the king are justified only for the sake of the happiness of the
people.

Thus directly or indirectly Kautilya’s king and Machiavelli’s prince comes near to
Plato’s philosopher king. Kautilya’s king shares many characteristics.