Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The Arthashastra is one of the veritable classics of Indian literature dating back to pre-classical (i.e Pre Gupta) times.

While I am no expert on it, here's a thread with some insights gleaned from it in the past couple of days

First the authorship.

Who wrote Arthashastra? The author as per tradition is a brahman named Kautilya, known by several other names

Kautilya refers to a man of Kutila Gotra.

This is interesting as I am not aware of Kutila gotra's existence today. But it appears to have been a gotra that was prevalent 2000 years ago

Kautilya is also known by the names Chanakya, and Vishnu Gupta.

Chanakya means the "Son of Chanaka".

Some suggest Vishnu Gupta is his real name with Kautilya and Chanakya being alternative addresses

There is another view that Vishnu Gupta is the name of the editor of the final recension of the Arthashastra text, while Kautilya is the original author. And that these are two different individuals.

Next comes the issue of dating the Arthashastra.

Chanakya was a brahman either from Takshashila or South India (as per two traditions) who was instrumental in dethroning the Nanda king Dhanananda, and establishing the rule of Chandragupta - the founder of the Mauryan empire

All the rival traditions agree on Chanakya's role as a kingmaker and his being instrumental in grooming the young Chandragupta.

This would place Chanakya firmly in 4th century BCE (~350-300 BCE)

However there is a strain in modern Indology that contends neither Chanakya nor Arthashastra can be that old, because neither is explicitly mentioned in the work of Megasthenes- Indika - who visited India during the reign of Chandragupta

This view places Arthashastra circa 150AD

However this view in Indology appears biased as it does not ascribe enough importance to traditional accounts which clearly identify Chanakya with Chandragupta - the king who ascended the Mauryan throne in 321 BCE.

Also it doesn't seem right to place too much importance on the absence of Kautilya / Arthashastra in Megasthenes's writing - given that only fragments of the Greek writer's work survives to our times.

So the traditional view of placing the work in 4th century BCE, atleast to my mind, does not deserve to be controverted

While Chanakya and his legend have been well known and never forgotten throughout Indian history over the past 2000 yrs, the Arthashastra itself was not available to us at the beginning of the 20th c

It was a lost text. People knew it only by legend and references in other works

A manuscript of the Arthashastra was discovered on palm leaf by Dr Shamashastry of Mysore in 1904. The text interestingly was written in Grantha script (not Devanagari) Grantha is the script used in the Tamil country for much of the middle ages for writing both Tamil and Sanskrit

This was an astounding discovery. But for which the text would have been lost to us for ever.

Shamashastry, a Sankethi brahman from Mysore, also undertook the first translation into English (which is available in public domain)

Next let's talk about the work itself. Both Chanakya and Arthashastra are much misunderstood entities.

There is a tendency to view Arthashastra as a work of "economics". And Chanakya as a "Machiavellian" figure

Both these characterizations are downright false.

Arthashastra is primarily a work of statecraft and political economy. It is NOT a work of economic theory. In fact it is not a work of theory at all. It is rooted in practice and attempts to describe the function of "ideal" State

Also while Machiavelli (15th cen) can lay claim to being a Political philosopher, Kautilya is better described as a practitioner. With a much greater eye for detail.

His treatise is one of practical political economy rooted in its times. He is not a philosopher, in my view.

The Arthashastra is primarily a text in prose. Which nonetheless includes some 300+ shlokas (verses).

The language is Pre-Paninian Sanskrit, which again suggests considerable antiquity and lends greater credence to the 4th cen BCE dating

The text is most definitely post Buddha. This is proven by the references to "Sakyas" as a distinct religious group in the text.

Now what is the "Arthashastra"? Is it a standalone work? Or a representative of a genre.

There is no doubt that it is the latter.

The Hindu view of the four aims of life - Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha - had taken shape in the centuries preceding Arthashastra.

Arthashastras are the genre of texts dealing with the second of the 4 Purusharthas. Exactly as the Dharmashastras concern the first Purushartha

Kautilya's work is the best known representative of the Arthashastra genre which ended up superseding earlier representatives in the genre - possibly because they were rendered obsolete by Kautilya's version

But one must be clear about what Arthashastra's contents are -

It is an instructional work on political economy. It is not a work of philosophy or theory.

So to compare Arthashastra with Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics or Machiavelli's Prince woudl be a mistake.

So in that respect, it is definitely not as timeless a work as Upanishads or the Gita or even the Mahabharata / Ramayana.

Those works contain a great deal of philosophy, debate, theorizing on matters of ethics, politics and religion.

That can't be said for Arthashastra.

The text contains 150 chapters, 180 prakaranas (meaning "topics"). Its contents include -

a) Detailed account of the duties of a King
b) Duties of the various govt executives
c) Law / administration of justice
d) On suppression / detection of crime
e) Foreign policy
(Contd..)

f) On War and preparation for the same
g) On battle strategies
h) On Strategies and strategems for a wartime King
among other things.

And ofcourse while going through all this, we get a very keen insight into North Indian society as it existed in the Mauryan period

What is the religion espoused by Chanakya in the Arthashastra?

Clearly it is the Vedic religion. This is explicitly mentioned. Religious minorities like Shakyas (Buddhists) and Ajivikas are mentioned. But the predominant religion is the Vedic religion

Now many scholars suggest that Arthashastra describes a relatively more "liberal" society than what comes across in Dharmasastra texts like that of Manu. Hence somehow Manu probably is a later figure, of the Shunga age when society had turned more "orthodox".

This is a popular view I have read in many places. BUt I have to disagree with it.

Because Kautilya himself mentions the "school of Manu" several times in his text!!

I have not cross-checked if what he attributes to Manu is consistent with what exists in Manu Smriti.

But given the explicit reference to Manu in many places, I am inclined to think Arthashastra does NOT predate Manu's Dharmashastra.

THis is a classic example, in my view, of how historians have constructed a chronology based on a historicist understanding of the texts while deliberately ignoring what the authors are telling us.

How can Arthashastra predate Manu when Kautilya refers to Manu time and again? Why can't we take Kautilya at face value?

To my mind this also suggests that you could well have the prevalence of both an "orthodox" and a "not so orthodox" text in the same epoch. The drastic differences in tone need not necessarily imply they belong to very different eras

HIstoricism can sometimes be unwarranted

In terms of scriptures, the Arthashastra refers to "Three" Vedas implying that Atharva Veda had a lower status than the other three

Interestingly it also refers to "Itihasa Veda" implying existence of some form of Ramayana & Mahabharata at the time of Arthashastra's authorship

This is also interesting because it is very fashionable among most indologists to view MB and Ramayana as having reached their final form only during Gupta period - some 7 centuries after Kautilya.

The explicit mention of Itihaasas in Kautilya and the reference to them as Veda suggests that a canonized form of the epics had already taken shape 3 centuries before Christ.

Nevertheless it is true that Rama and Krishna do not appear to have been dominant theological figures during the authorship of this text.

I could not find a reference to Rama (may have missed it). But I did find a single reference to Krishna.

A tendency among Indologists is to regard temple and idol worship in India as being influenced by the Indo-Greeks, and not native to Indian / Vedic culture. This is a view I have encountered in many places.

But Arthashastra proves this wrong!

There are explicit references to temples and deities. But the deities are not quite the same as the popular deities today.

An extract -
"In the centre of the city, the apartments of Gods such as Aparájita, Apratihata, Jayanta, Vaijayanta, Siva, Vaisravana, Asvina (divine physicians), ... shall be situated"

This is interesting as Jayanta and Vaijayanta could well refer to Jaya and Vijaya - who are the two Dwaar-palaks of Vishnu in Vaikunta in modern puranic theology.

Votaries of the "Free market" won't find Arthashastra to their liking. As the economy described by Kautilya does appear to be centrally planned to a significant extent.

For eg : The sale of liquor was not just regulated but run by the state. There even was an office termed "Superintendent of Liquor".

Similarly Prostitution too was managed by the state. There existed a "Superintendent of Prostitutes" (employed on a salary of 1000 panas p.a)

The Chatur-Varna system definitely was a social reality. But Kautilya also describes the different types of inter-Varna unions very explicitly. Suggesting that marriages between Varnas was prevalent.

Eg :

"the son begotten by a Bráhman on a Vaisya woman is called Ambashtha; on a
Súdra woman is called Nisháda or Párasava. The son begotten by a Kshatriya
on a Súdra woman is known as Ugra;"

So clearly Varna Sankara was as much of a reality as Varna itself. However the relative status of these groups cannot necessarily be surmised, from the text.

Widow remarriage was also a reality. But it is stated that widows who remarry will forfeit the property inherited from their father in laws or husbands.

But the text does not disallow widow remarriage.

Now we know Manu has a stricter take on widows than Kautilya. This leads modern scholarship to suggest a later date for Manu

But hang on. Kautilya refers to Manu, as I mentioned

Maybe these are just two different individuals with different mindsets, in the same era? Possible

These are just some of my initial impressions from gleaning through the book.

It is a fascinating work. What's disappointing is that Kautilya does not cite any figure of history. Not even his Mauryan protege! Thus leaving a lot of scope for speculations on his dating.

All in all, a book worth gleaning through and reading, provided one approaches it with the right expectations.

As I said this is a manual on statecraft. Not a work of political philosophy or economic theory.