KAUTILYA AND ARTHASHASTRA TRADITION • Kautilya’s Arthashastra is not a theoretical treatise on political science. It is not directly concern itself

with the question of the origin of the state. Kautilya’s Arthashastra essential a book on the art of administration gave only passing reference to the origin of the state. Kautilya refers to the problem of the origin of the state only incidentally during a discussion of spies among themselves.

• According to Kautilya the state originated when people got tired of the logic of the fish (Matsyanyaya) according to which bigger fish swallow the smaller ones. People themselves selected Manu as their King And one tenth of the merchandise and of the whole as his share. The state originated to fulfil the desire of the people to have a peaceful society.

• King took upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of their subjects. Kautilya does not propound any logical theory of the state, its origin and ends, but he appears to believe in the social contract theory according to which the state came into existence after such a contract between the king and the people. He regarded the state a result of human nature and its needs and it was consequently natural and beneficial.

• Thus Kautilya imagined the original state of nature to be one of total anarchy, where might is right prevailed. People agreed to pay taxes and to be rules by one person in order that they may be able to enjoy security and wellbeing.

• Kautilya believed that the state was an organism and not a mere mechanical Institution. Kautilya was the first contractualists in India like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. His intention was to replace the misrule of Nanda Dynasty by Chandragupta who could make the strong and powerful state. Kautilya also believed in the divine origin theory.

KAUTILYA: SAPTANGA THEORY OF STATE

The Saptanga Theory of Kautilya, is given in his book 'Arthashastra'. According to the theory, the State consists of seven elements. Kautilya adopts the seven limbs theory of the state of Indian tradition or Saptanga which are;

1. Swami, 2. Amatya, 3. Janpad, 4. Durg, 5. Kosha, 6. Sena 7. Mitra.

He suggests a state can only function when all these elements or limbs of a body politic are mutually

integrated and cooperate well with each other.

Swami (The Sovereign King)

• The king was referred to as the Lord or Swami and placed at the top of the body politics. Kautilya says a perfect king should have the following qualities:

a) He should have an inviting nature. b) He should have qualities of intellect and intuition. c) He should have great enthusiasm. d) He should have qualities of self-restraint and spirit.

• In addition Kautilya mentions the king should be from a high family, be non-fatalistic, Endowed with strong character and should be religious and truthful.

• He should be free of passion, anger, greed, and fickleness and capable of self-management, observing the customs taught by elderly people and have the capacity to make judgments like when to go to war and when to seek peace through a treaty.

• He should have a sense of sovereignty and owe allegiance to anybody and be the king of one whole political organization and not part of it.

Amatya (Ministers)

By Amatya Kautilya refers to higher officials of the state like ministers and not necessarily just ministers. The king should keep checking the integrity of the amatyas from time to time and he also advises the king to appoint 3 amatyas instead of two since two amatyas can easily join hands and conspire against the king. He says the qualities of a high official should be:

• he must be a Janpad, a native of the county that he is an official of, come from a good family,

• be Adequately trained, have foresight,

• eloquence, dignity, enthusiasm,

• have administrative Ability,

• knowledge of scriptures,

• And high character.

Janpad (Territory and People)

• Territory and People constitute the third limb of the state in Kautilya's Arthashastra.

• Kautilya gives a clear cut description of what an ideal territory would be like. He says the territory should be free from muddy, rocky, saline, uneven and thorny areas and from wild beasts.

• There should be lands that are fertile with lots of timber and elephant forests. There should be plenty of arable land and richness of cattle and the land should be wholesome to cows and men.

• The territories should not be dependent on rains too much and have waterways.

• Also there should be roads and good markets capable of bearing the army and taxation.

• The people populating a state should have the qualities of being hostile to the foes, be powerful enough to control the neighbouring kings and consist of people who are pure and devoted.

• The people should respect the rule of law and the government Kautilya also says the people should consist of industrious agriculturists and a majority of lower classes of economically productive vaish and shudras.

• Also the masters of the people should be not too intelligent so that they can be controlled by the king easily.

Durg (Fort)

• Kautilya identifies forts as the fourth limb and mentions four kinds of forts that a king needs.

• He says the four kinds of forts that are necessary are: water forts, hill forts, desert forts and forest forts.

• The water and hill forts are suitable for defending the population and the desert and forest forts and suitable as headquarters for wild regions and to serve as places to run away to in case of emergency.

• Kautilya says the power of a king depends on the forts which should be fit for fighting and to defend the state.

Kosha (Treasury)

• Kautilya clears puts great store by the economic resources of a state and mentions that the success of a state depends upon its treasury size which should have enough gold and silver to see the king through long periods of calamity.

• The treasury should be legitimately acquired by the king or his predecessors. The treasury is easily increased when; (1) there is opulence of the industrial department run by the state, (2) there is a propensity for commerce and (3) abundance in harvest.

• In cases of emergency Kautilya finds no problem with the king raising revenue even through means such as a higher assessment on first class and fertile land and heavy taxes on merchandise etc. He also condones in emergencies for the king to exploit the superstitious and religious sentiments of the people.

Sena (Army)

• Kautilya mentions the army or Sena as the limb that the king needs to control both his own people and his enemy's.

• Kautilya talks about six types of army; (1) hereditary forces, (2) hired troops, (3) soldiers of fighting corporations, (4) troops belonging to an ally, (5) troops belonging to the enemy and (6) soldiers of wild tribes.

• Interestingly the best of the six according to Kautilya is the hereditary army composed of members of the Kshatriya caste for they are loyal to the king and are committed to serve the king through weal and woe and have powers of endurance and superior fighting skills because they have fought many battles.

Mitra (Ally)

• Kautilya finally stresses on the need for political friends in the other states because no state functions in isolation. Kautilya classifies allies into two kinds; Sahaj (natural) and Kritrim (acquired).

• The sahaj ally is one who is close by territorially and has been inherited as a friend from fathers and grandfathers and the kritrim ally is one who is resorted to temporarily for the protection of wealth and life.

• Kautilya prefers the sahaj ally over the kritrim one if the sahaj ally is free from deceit and is capable of making large scale preparations for war quickly and on a large scale.

The nature of state is organic. A strong state consisted of these seven elements.

KAUTILYA: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING STATE

• A.B. Keith is of the opinion that Kautilya “offers nothing that can be regarded as serious theory of politics ….but there was intensive study of the practical aspects of the government and of relations between the states”.

• However, Arthashastra is not about theoretical descriptions of the state, its origin, its functions, ideal state, etc. even though it has some theoretical assumptions about the state. Kautilya accepted the theory of origin of the state of his predecessors that it is created by humans by contract.

• He has provided some sort of speculation about the nature of the state, not literally, but by indications, that, the state is a “socialist monarchy” with centralized economy, good governance, welfare state and very disciplined by law and order.

• Kautilya also gives primacy to religion; he even used religion as a mean to accomplish political ends.

• To deal with internal security problems and corruption he suggested establishing a ‘spy state’.

• Despite of all the realistic means or art of government he preaches, his ultimate aim is the prosperity and wellbeing of the subject.

• Thus he stated a very detailed account of duties of the king toward its subjects; as a part, he proclaimed the king should be the kind father of people and all his interests, happiness is not

separated from those of the subjects.

• This assumption is also in favour of the king because it is necessary for legitimacy. Kautilya recognized the social justice as also a mean to strengthen the state …which is in the king’s interests”.

• At the starting of Book VI, Kautilya mentioned the seven constituents of the state – The king, minister, country, fortified city, treasury, army and the ally, out of which the king is of highest importance but all are supposed to be functioning like different limbs of an organism.

• They should work efficiently with highly maintained co-ordination, because these are the fundamental elements of the state’s power and of course, plays wide role in external affairs as a “wise king who possesses the personal qualities, though ruling over the small territories being united with the excellence of the constituent elements (Prakritis) and conversant with Arthashastra does conquer the entire earth, never loses”.

KAUTILYA: FOREIGN POLICY

• Kautilya is an expansionist who advised not only the preservation of the state but also to conquer territories of others. It is the Mandala theory which is the basis of Kautilya’s foreign policy. In other words it is a theory of world conquest.

• He has paved the way for Vijigishu i.e. “the king who is desirous or aspirant to world conquest,” how to be a Chakravartin i.e. world conqueror.

• This concept contemplated in this Shastras does not necessarily imply the conquest of the whole world but the region lying between the Himalaya in the north and the sea from required sides. It denotes India.

• The Mandala theory is based on the geopolitical and geo-strategic assumption that all neighbouring states are enemy and the enemy’s enemy is the natural ally.

• This circle of kingdom includes 12 kings with explanations for their probable types of interrelations. In this text, foreign policy is mainly discussed from the standpoint of Vijigishu and world conquest, and it is summed up with the Shadguna theory i.e. “six fold policy or six measures of foreign policy.

• Actually, this is like a formula to secure the competency of Vijigishu for world conquest. This formula is associated with presupposed Mandala theory.

• Shadguna theory consists of six strategic stances those can be employed as per the demand of situation, and one who will use them properly as right stance on the right time, would become a world conqueror”.

• Along with these two core concepts Kautilya suggested four more Upayas i.e. tactics, to overcome the enemy. Kautilya argued that at any given moment a kingdom is in a state of “decline, stability or advancement” and in the first two stages it has to focus on defending itself by making alliances, solving internal problems….in the last stage, if, however, a kingdom has a prosperous economy, well populace, no calamities, strong leadership, is in a position to conquest the neighbouring states.

• As a practical statesman and a realist, Kautilya realized that every state acts in order to enhance its power and self-interest; therefore moral, ethical or religious obligation does not have any scope in the international politics.

• “War and peace are considered solely from the point of view of the profit”.

• Kautilya assumes that every move of the king desirous for victory towards its ally or enemy should have to be based on its own interests.

• As Bruce Rich says, “Kautilya’s foreign policy was the ruthless realpolitik, intrigue and deception… Kautilya cold blooded realism and treachery with some remarkable enlightened policies”.

• Most scholars of political history, especially Westerners, blame Kautilya for his so called immoral recommendations in foreign policy. But at least he is honest with his arguments and teachings, unlike those who are the idealist of daylight and opportunist in the dark.

• The fault of Arthashastra, as that of Machiavelli, lies in openly saying something that has always been actually practiced by states everywhere”.

• Was Kautilya immoral? The answer is obviously no. He just followed principles which were actually in practice at inter-state level at that time, and it is still being followed now. He “was unmoral not immoral; unreligious, not non-religious, in his political teachings”.

• Kautilya set the goal of foreign policy before the Vijigishu that it is not mere preservation of the state but its expansion as well. It is the goal of world conquest and pertaining to this goal he propounded the theory of Mandala or circle of the states along with the six fold policy.

• The king is suggested to follow the right means at the right time with the flexible planning and complete determination. Kautilya preaches that there is nothing like ethics and moral in foreign policy but the goal and self-interest only; after all, end justifies the means.

THEORY OF MANDALA/RAJMANDALA/CIRCLE OF THE STATES

As per Bosche “For Kautilya, this principle of foreign policy – that nations act in their political, economic and military self-interests was a timeless truth of his science of politics or Arthashastra”. Kautilya is most famous for outlining the Mandala theory or the circle of the states which consists of 12 kingdoms as –

1) Vijigishu: Desirous for or would be, world conqueror. 2) Ari: whose territory is contagious to Vijigishu, is a natural enemy.(Neighbour) 3) Mitra; it is ally of Vijigishu whose territory is immediately beside the enemy or Ari. 4) Arimitra; enemies ally indirectly is enemy, who is immediate beyond ally. 5) Mitra-Mitra: It is ally immediately beside the enemy’s ally. 6) Ari Mitra-Mitra: It is ally of enemy’s ally situated at immediate beside Mitra –Mitra. 7) Parshnigraha: The enemy, in the rear of the Vijigishu. Means he will attack when Vijigishu would

be on the expedition in front. 8) Akranda: Vijugishu’s ally in the rear behind that of Parshnigraha. 9) Parshnigrahasara: enemy’s ally, the ally of Parshnigraha behind Akranda. 10) Akrandsara: The ally of Akranda behind Parshnigrahasara, ultimately an ally. 11) Madhyama: the Middle king with territory adjoining those of Vijigishu and Ari and stronger than

both. 12) Udasina: the kingdom lying outside or neutral and more powerful than that of Vijigishu, Ari, and

Madhyama.

• These schemes are based on assumptions derived from the practical experiences found everywhere that two neighbouring states sharing their borders are hostile to each other. And the hostile state to the enemy i.e. the enemy’s enemy is a natural ally.

• The Vijigishu is situated at exactly the centre of this circle. It does not give the fixed account of the numbers of the kingdom in this mandala, but refers to a number of possible relationships that may arise when Vijigishu would be in the quest of global dominance.

• The neighbouring princes, samantas may normally be supposed to be hostile but it is possible that some may have friendly feeling toward the Vijigishu, while others may even be subservient to him.

• Mandala theory is the plan, the blueprint of the expedition with the intention of world conquest because Kautilya believes in strength and power.

• For him, “Power is the possession of strength” and it is in three forms: 1) Mantrashakti: power of Knowledge i.e. power of counsel; 2) Prabhu shakti: Power of might i.e. power of treasury and army; and 3) Utsaha Shakti: power of energy i.e. power of valour.

• Likewise, success is also of three fold. By this theory Kautilya indicates towards reality, and made alert to the king to be a conqueror or suffer conquest. All his discussion is revolving around the desire of victory over enemy and world conquest to establish unified, sovereign world empire that is the concept of Chakravorty – imperatively the Indian territories in between the Himalaya and the sea.

• G.P. Singh argues that the Mandala theory is ancient India’s most notable contribution to political theory. Singh analysed the mandala theory as a ‘Balance of power’ but Bosche contradicted this statement by stating that “it was not offering modern balance of power arguments where the ultimate status quo and peace is the purpose of such interstate activities in modern time”. Moreover this theory provides Geo strategic analysis of interstate relations, therefore, it is the theory of geopolitics.

SHADGUNA SIDHANTA - SIX MEASURES OF FOREIGN POLICY

This doctrine is about the six principles of foreign policy like a formula for attainment of one’s national interests and goals at the level of international politics based on political reality. It is the archetype of foreign

policy acting as a guiding force for the Vijigishu to become a world conqueror. It contains six basic principles as follows:

1) Sandhi: (making treaty containing terms and conditions) the general principal in foreign policy is that, when the one is comparatively weaker than that of his enemy, the policy of peace i.e. Sandhi should be employed. When making a treaty one may be required to surrender troops or treasury or territory, called Dandopanta sandhi, Kosopanta sandhi and Desopanta sandhi, respectively. Kautilya advised the king to enter in to the treaty, thwart the strong enemy when fulfilling the conditions of the treaty and after bidding his time till he get strong to overthrow the strong enemy. It means this is the policy to seek or spare the time to become strong and waiting for weakening of enemy, till then one have to hold patience for right opportunity. It is practical opportunism.

2) Vigraha: (Policy of Hostility) if one is stronger than the enemy, policy of hostility should be adapted. This policy has two dimensions- i. Defensive ii. Offensive, while in first case, one who is sure about its strength to repel attack of enemy, should resort Vigraha. And in the second case, that, one who feels from the secured position can ruin the enemy’s undertakings or can seize enemy’s territories, because he is engaged in the war on another front, can go for Vigraha. But Kautilya is very anxious about the profit and loses as he recommends Sandhi instead of Vigraha when both, supposed to be lead the same result. Obviously, there are comparatively more loses, expenses and troubles in hostility .

3) Asana: ( A policy of remain quite, not planning to march) Asana is the state in which one is to wait in the hope that the enemy would get weaker or find himself in difficulties or in calamities, get involved in war on other front and one would be strong than enemy. Naturally this policy is often a concomitant of the policy of the Sandhi. But at the same time it can be corroborated with the policy of Vigraha. For example, by seducing enemy’s subjects from their loyalty by the means of dissension and propaganda, one will try to weaken enemy secretly.

4) Yana: (Marching on an expedition) the policy of Yana is much clear and explicit among all of others, which can be persuade in the situation when one is surely strong than his enemy. “Normally, Yana and Vigraha are parallel but in Yana, one is expected to be completely dominant in the strength”.

5) Sansraya: (seeking shelter with another king or in a fort) this policy is particularly recommended for a weak king who is attacked or threatened to be attacked by powerful enemy. It is also implied that the king would be making continuous efforts to recoup his strength and independence. The shelter at one’s own fort is also a suggestion. But if none of these remedies would help then the weak king should resort the last mean of surrender, this is vassalage. And he should be watchful for opportunity to strike back and obtain his previous position.

6) Dvaidhibhava: (The double policy of Sandhi with one king and Vigraha with Another at a time) It is obviously a policy of dual purpose, where Sandhi is for seeking help in the form of treasury and troops from one king to wage hostility toward another king. This policy is referred for the king who is equally strong to enemy and he cannot win the battle without additional strength of his ally.

The aim of provisions of these policies is to grow stronger in the long term competition than the enemy, though sometimes one may have to tolerate temporarily, the great strength of enemy. The expansion of one’s power and state at the cost of its natural enemy’s the motive behind this doctrine. While moving toward the ultimate aim of world conquest, the interests of one’s own state is the supreme criterion for the external affairs.

FOUR UPAYAS

These are the tactics or means of overcoming opposition mentioned as: 1) Saman: Conciliation 2) Dama: Gifts 3) Bheda: Dissension 4) Danda: Force. First two are suggested to be used with subjugate weak king and last two are to overcome strong kings.

KAUTILYA: DIPLOMACY

• Kautilya finds the diplomacy also as an apparatus of war. “For Kautilya, all ambassadors were potential spies with diplomatic immunity” - Mujumdar.

• He argued that diplomacy is really subtle act of war, a series of consistent actions taken to weaken an enemy and get advantage for oneself all with an eye towards eventual conquest “and in entire circle he should ever station envoys and secrete agents becoming a friend of the rivals, maintaining secrecy when striking again and again”.-

KAUTILYA ON CORRUPTION

• He believed that “men are naturally fickle minded” and are comparable to “horses at work [who] exhibit constant change in their temper”.

• This means that honesty is not a virtue that would remain consistent lifelong and the temptation to make easy gains through corrupt means can override the trait of honesty any time.

• Similarly, he compared the process of generation and collection of revenue (by officials) with honey or poison on the tip of the tongue, which becomes impossible not to taste.

• He prescribed a strict vigil even over the superintendents of government departments in relation to the place, time, nature, output and modus operandi of work. All this is perhaps indicative of widespread corruption in the Kingdom’s administration at various levels.

• Illegal transactions were so shrouded in mist that he compared frauds to fish moving under water and the virtual impossibility of detecting when exactly the fish is drinking water.

• He also noted that while it is possible to ascertain the movements of bird flying in the sky, it is difficult to gauge the corrupt activities of government officials.

• Kautilya was a great administrative thinker of his times. As he argued, too much of personal interaction or union among the higher executives leads to departmental goals being compromised and leads to corruption. This is because human emotions and personal concerns act as impediments to the successful running of an administration, which is basically a rule-based impersonal affair.

• Similarly, dissension among executives when team effort is required results in a poor outcome. Kautilya suggested that the decline in output and corruption can be curbed by promoting professionalism at work. The superintendents should execute work with the subordinate officials such as accountants, writers, coin-examiners, treasurers and military officers in a team spirit. Such an effort creates a sense of belonging among members of the department who start identifying and synchronising their goals with the larger goals of the organisation, thereby contributing to the eventual success of the state.

• Kautilya provides a comprehensive list of 40 kinds of embezzlement. In all these cases, the concerned functionaries such as the treasurer (nidhayaka), the prescriber (nibandhaka), the receiver (pratigrahaka), the payer (dayak), the person who caused the payment (dapaka) and the ministerial servants (mantri-vaiyavrityakara) were to be separately interrogated.

• In case any of these officials were to lie, their punishment was to be enhanced to the level meted out to the chief officer (yukta) mainly responsible for the crime. After the enquiry, a public proclamation (prachara) was to be made asking the common people to claim compensation in case they were aggrieved and suffered from the embezzlement. Thus, Kautilya was concerned about carrying the cases of fraud to their logical conclusion.

• The Arthashastra states that an increase in expenditure and lower revenue collection (parihapan) was an indication of embezzlement of funds by corrupt officials. Kautilya was sensitive enough to acknowledge the waste of labour of the workforce involved in generating revenues.

• He defined self enjoyment (upbhoga) by government functionaries as making use of or causing others to enjoy what belongs to the king. He was perhaps alluding to the current practice of misusing government offices for selfish motives such as unduly benefitting the self, family members, friends and relatives either in monetary or non-monetary form which harms the larger public good.

• Kautilya was also not unaware of corruption in the judicial administration. He prescribed the imposition of varying degrees of fines on judges trying to proceed with a trial without evidence, or unjustly maintaining silence, or threatening, defaming or abusing the complainants, arbitrarily dismissing responses provided to questions raised by the judge himself, unnecessarily delaying the trial or giving unjust punishments.

• In an atmosphere of corruption prevailing in the judicial administration as well, Kautilya perhaps wanted to ensure that the litigants are encouraged and given voice to air their legitimate grievances. He expected judges to be more receptive to the complaints and be fair in delivering justice.

• Kautilya prescribed reliance on an elaborate espionage network for detecting financial misappropriation and judicial impropriety. Spies were recruited for their honesty and good conduct. They were to keep a watch even over the activities of accountants and clerks for reporting cases of fabrication of accounts.

• On successful detection of embezzlement cases, Kautilya advocated hefty fines to be imposed apart from the confiscation of ill-earned wealth. If a functionary was charged and proved even of a single offence, he was made answerable for all other associated offences related to the case.

• Since taxes paid by the people are utilised for their welfare, any loss of revenue affects the welfare of the society at large. This is precisely the reason why Kautilya explicitly argued that the fines imposed should be “in proportion to the value of work done, the number of days taken, the amount of capital spent and the amount of daily wages paid”.

• Interestingly, Kautilya also dealt with the concept of whistle-blowers. Any informant (suchaka) who provided details about financial wrongdoing was entitled an award of one-sixth of the amount in question. If the informant happened to be a government servant (bhritaka), he was to be given only one twelfth of the total amount. The former’s share was more because exposing corruption while being outside the system was more challenging. But in the case of bhritakas, striving for a corruption free administration was considered more of a duty that was ideally expected of them.

• Kautilya argued for advertising the cases of increase in revenue due to the honest and dedicated efforts of the superintendents by giving rewards and promotions. Bestowing public honour creates a sense of pride and boosts the motivation and morale of honest officials. They act as role models for ideal youngsters who wish to join the administration and serve the state.

• Kautilya also proposed a number of measures to avoid cases of corruption arising at all. Several positions in each department were to be made temporary. Permanency for such positions was to be reserved as an award granted by the king to those who help augment revenue rather than eating up hard earned resources.

• Kautilya also favoured the periodic transfer of government servants from one place to another. This was done with the intention of not giving them enough time to pick holes in the system and manipulate it to their advantage.

• Kautilya wrote that “dispensing with (the service of too many) government servants...[is] conducive to financial prosperity”. This is not only because of the reduction in expenditure on salary but rightsizing the bureaucracy also results in faster decision making and the transaction of government business

without unnecessary delay and red tape. This effectively reduces the scope for bribery in particular and corruption in general.

• It is interesting to note that the superintendents could not undertake any new initiative (except remedial measures against imminent danger) without the knowledge of the king. Kautilya, therefore, laid emphasis on some kind of an accountability mechanism. Apart from using the services of spies for unearthing cases of fraud, Kautilya also talked about an intra-departmental, self-scrutinising mechanism under the headship of chief officer (adhikarna) to detect and deter imminent cases of corruption.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

Similarities of opinion

• Firstly, For instance, the acquisition, preservation and expansion of the State, Both realistically analyse the methods by which a king may rise to supreme power and maintain it against all odds.

• In both, we find the duality of treatment of the feelings and weaknesses of men and the tendency to legitimize force and fraud in the interest of the State.

• For, both the authors, the State, vis-a-vis the interest of a person are paramount.

• Both of them held the belief that, through a proper and critical study of history, one could deduce not only the causes of maladies of society, but also the cures thereof.

• Kautilya belonged to the Arthashastra School which looked at the political phenomenon without linking them in any way with divine agency or revelation. The approach was thus religious but at the same time rational. The Modern Italian thinker affected a break with the medieval way of thinking and reasoning and adopted the empirical or historical method of investigation and released the State from the burden to religious authorities.

• Thirdly, in the field of real politics, there is much that is common between Kautilya and Machiavelli. Kautilya is aware that the Swami (king) can hardly feel secure in a State where persons denied of power by him are still alive and well. Similar insistence was that of Machiavelli while cautioning the Prince against any possible conspiracy and scandal.

• Both Kautilya and Machiavelli advised the ruler to be merciless, cruel and unscrupulous while suppressing internal disruptions and external aggressions. The former provided different kinds sanctions which coercive in nature and punishments prescribed by him were stringent and cruel. But Machiavelli, while elaborating the theme of the art of war, did not mention cruel techniques like blinding through the use of poisonous powders for attaining political goal. Kautilya surpassed Machiavelli and left him for behind while sanctioning several barbarous and cruel measures for attaining success. No ethical code supports Kautilya's methods for swimming success. For the sake of the country's security all kinds of measures including violence and fraud were welcome and they could not be considered as reprehensible. This is what both Kautilya and Machiavelli advocated. To them, end justified the means.

• Both Kautilya and Machiavelli were quite pessimistic in their approach to human nature. It seems that the former treated men with contempt as they were unreliable and entrust wrongly. Hence they should not be taken into confidence. He, however, made “no categorical statement regarding the corruptibility of human nature in general”. Machiavelli, on the other hand, categorically said that people were ungrateful, fickle, deceitful avaricious, vicious, evil, mean, corrupt and unreliable. He, therefore, suggested that there should be strong political force to restrain the deviant behaviour of the people. Force and fraud were welcome measures as they checked their psychological abnormality. He upheld a more pervert conception of human nature than Kautilya. He considered men to be greedy, selfish and cruel. They understood only the language of force. Kautilya now here made a generalized statement about the weakness or perversity, or selfishness of man.

Differences of opinion

1. Machiavelli was motivated by a burning patriotism to see Italy rise again from the ashes into a modern nation for the liberation of the unhappy land from decay. Kautilya, on the contrary, was aspired to ensure the security and stability of the kingdom so as to achieve Dharma on the globe. Kautilya's major preoccupation, unlike that of Machiavelli, was to foster and restore the ethical values of Indian system both in method and in principle.

2. Secondly, Kautilya's essentially spiritual nature and Machiavelli's essentially secular material makeup stand out against each other. Though both believed and prescribed to the rulers the rules of the game of politics, the use of religion for political ends, their grounds for doing so, as also their concepts of power and goals, were mutually exclusive.

3. Thirdly, Kautilya also does not wholly subscribe to the view of Machiavelli that man is born badly and has no inherent virtue in him. On the contrary, Kautilya admits that man has altruistic and good qualities alongside some selfish and bad traits. He thus, does not endorse the view of Machiavelli that man is thoroughly bad and wholly selfish. To him, a man, apart from being selfish and leaning is altogether rational and is, therefore, advised to follow a code of conduct on Dharma and to adopt immoral means to deal with cunning.

4. Fourthly, Kautilya stressed that the State was an organism on which depended the happiness of the society and its individual members. This moral base of the State was repeatedly denied by Machiavelli, for his mission was to free politics from its captivity to religion and isolating the phenomenon of politics from moral constraints.

5. Fifthly, There is fundamental difference between the kingship of Kautilya and Machiavelli. As for Machiavelli, he left the personal and private character of the Prince of his upbringing out of sight, and treated him as the personification of the State, wherein the private individual is inevitably merged in the politician. On the other hand, Kautilya's characterization of the king was by self-control, wisdom, discipline and noble conduct. What is most significant is Kautilya's priority to Dharma over Danda. While Machiavelli argues, "it is not necessary for a prince really to have virtues, but it is very necessary to seem to have them", Kautilya, King's departure from moral norms was a temporary step for those moral norms. The king was expected to be a virtuous person in thought, word and deed. If he had to be cruel by necessity, it was to make virtuous life possible for all.

6. Sixthly, So far as the ultimate objective of the State is concerned, Machiavelli did not think much of the

populace, the welfare of the less privileged did not bother him, as these concerned Kautilya. The majority of citizens to Machiavelli were content with the security of person and property that the State provided them. He glorified the State and stressed the over-riding claim of the State to the loyalty of the individual. He would not concede that man had any right over and against the State. Man attained his optimum development through subordinating himself to the society, held Machiavelli, and that the State provided a political framework essential to the development of mankind. On the other hand, to Kautilya. The State was subordinated to the society which it did not create, but which it existed to secure. The highest office of the State is, thus an aggregate of the people whose welfare is an end in itself. Political power is the means to attain such an end.

7. Seventhly, the Kautilyan maxim: Prajaa Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam (in the welfare and happiness of the people lies the king's welfare and happiness), is indicative of his emphasis on the equation of welfare vs. power. Machiavelli insists that a good ruler is one who achieves the good of the people by fair or foul means; Kautilya demands that a good ruler should be a good man, besides being a good ruler. Kautilya, therefore, was the spokesman of Udyaana, the establishment of righteousness on earth, and aspired for Vaarta, enhancement to trade and commerce.

IN SHORT: KEY POINTS AND CONCEPTS IN ARTHASHASTRA

Kautilya’s Arthashastra

• Written around 325 B.C.

• Published by Shama Shastri in 1909

• Contains 15 parts, 180 divisions, 150 chapters and 6,000 shlokas

• Kautilya described well-organized state; Kingship, the qualities of an ideal ruler; the principles of

practical politics; Administration; ethical and moral order of the society; domestic and inter-state

policies; Warfare, Criminology, Intelligence & Espionage; etc.

• Besides politics, the other subjects included in Arthashastra are Economics, Ethics, Sociology, Science of

Education, Engineering and others.

The Origin of State (Kingship)

• Anarchy of Matsyanyaya

• To get rid of this Hobbesian kind of a situation, people selected Manu, the Vaivasvata, as their first king

• The King was expected not only to ensure their ‘safety and security’ and ‘punish’ people with anarchic

tendencies, but also to ‘maintain individual and social order’

• Royal dues equivalent to ‘one-sixth of the grain grown and one-tenth of merchandise’

• The king was expected to ensure the Yogakshema of the subjects and was also authorized to act at

once, as Indra and Yama acted, while dispensing rewards and punishment

The Organic State : The Saptanga Theory

Seven Elements (Prakritis) Corresponding Characteristics

1. The Swami, the sovereign King - Unity, uniformity and solidarity of the state

2. The Mantrin, the ministers - Stable and systematic administration;

3. The Janapada, the people and the territory - Definite territory, able to protect and support

both the king and the subjects;

4. The Durga, the fortification - Planned system of security and defence;

5. The Kosha, the treasury - System of just and proportionate taxation;

6. The Sena or the Danda, the army - Strong and powerful state; and

7. The Mitra, the allies - Freedom from alien rule

The Element of Sovereignty

• Absence of conceptual equivalent in Sanskrit of the notion of State sovereignty

• ‘Natural Frontiers’ notion is expressed by Kautilya in his ‘Chaturanta’ sovereignty (an empire up to four

limits)

• Kautilya was convinced that society can never hope to be in peace without a strong state.

• Swami is not merely a feudatory chieftain, but a variable sovereign, owing allegiance to none.

• The word Swami is derived from the word Swayam, which refers to self-determining.

• The crystallization of sovereignty in the king’s court and also in the metropolitan centers, if not in the

peripheral tribal republics.

• The existence of 16 Mahajanapadas as a proof of state-formation during Mauryan Empire.

• Overriding authority of the king's decree over all other judicial processes.

• Sovereignty appeared to be imbibed in monarch, the Swami.

Sources of Law

• Dharma (cannon law),

• Vyavahara (customary law),

• Samstha (usages) and

• Rajashasana (logical principles)

Kautilya was of the considered view that in case of conflict of interpretation, the king should himself decide

the dispute and his interpretation is to be upheld as final.

Forms of Government

• Mention of Dvairajya (rule of two), Vairajya (rule by foreign ruler), Sanghavritta (council of rulers),

• V.R. Mehta suggests not to categorize government either as absolute monarchy or oriental despotism

or constitutional monarchy.

• Monarchy is assumed to be the normal form of government

Checks on the absolute power of the Monarch

• Training in Dandaniti to Use his power with judiciousness

• Purohita to remind him his duties

• Moral Pressure: fear of losing throne

• Popular uprising against Oppressive Rule (e.g. Last rulers of the Maurya & Shunga Dynasties and

Govinda IV of Rashtrakuta)

• Threat to migrate to better governed state

Hereditary Monarchy: Succession to the Throne

• Continuity of rule in same dynasty – if Prince is properly trained

• If lone Prince is not properly trained, Daughter’s son may be appointed

• In the absence of such Prince, Princes or Widow of the late ruler to be vested with powers

• The widow to wield authority till a son is born to her (by Niyoga) and duly crowned

Proper upbringing / Qualities of the Prince: the Heir Apparent

Personal Ethics: Expected Qualities

• Qualities of an inviting nature (Abhigamika Guna)

• Qualities of intellect and intuition (Prajyna Guna)

• Qualities of enthusiasm (Utsaha Guna)

• Qualities of self-restraint and spirit (Atma Sampad)

To control Shatru-Shadvarga the six enemies of sex, anger, greed, vanity, haughtiness and over joy.

As Dandadhara

• Ability to conserve and promote Trayee, Anvikshiki and Vaarta

As Trustee of Kingship

• To regard his own happiness as that of his subjects

Advocacy for a Strong Centralized Monarchical Bureaucratic All-India State

Arthashastra as Science of Political-Economy

• ‘The substance of mankind is termed Artha (wealth), the earth that contains and is termed Artha

(wealth): the science, which deals with the means of acquiring and maintaining the Earth’

• Politics (Dandaniti) deals with

• ‘the acquisition of what has not been gained (Alabdha Laabhaartha);

• the preservation of what has been acquired (labdha Parirakshani);

• the accentuation or increase of what has been preserved (Rakshit Vivardhani); and

• Due-apportionment or the bestowal of the surplus upon the deservers (Vriddhasya Tirtheshu

Pratipaadini).

Systematic harmonious Integration

• The King may enjoy in an equal degree the three pursuits of life: charity, wealth and aesthetic desire,

which are interdependent upon each other

• Notion of the maximization of wealth and territory, a full treasure and power of punishment to control

one's own people (in the latter's pursuit towards Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha) and also to

suppress the enemy in his theory of the state, while ensuring due and proportionate taxation and

proper administration of treasury

Functions of State: Protective and Promotive

PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS

• To protect (i) the life of his people, especially the ones in distress, the widows, the women without

children, the women with infants, the orphans, the sick and the indigent; (ii) hermits, shrotriyas and

students, and (iii) property of the people;

• To put down violence and maintain law and order;

• To avert dangers and command the army;

• To 'redress peoples' grievances;

• To punish the wrong-doers; and

• To administer justice impartially and in accordance with the sacred law (Dharma, evidence (Vyavhara),

history (Samstha) and enacted law (Raajasthasana)

PROMOTIVE FUNCTION

• To promote the moral and material happiness and welfare of his people, as in their happiness lies his

happiness and in their welfare his welfare;

• To enable them to pursue freely their independent efforts in life;

• To maintain unity and solidarity;

• To reward virtue;

• To promote agriculture, industry and arts;

• To regulate the means of livelihood especially of the labourers and artisans; and

• To encourage education and help students.

Yogakshema: Kautilya’s Model of Welfare State

In general, term Welfare State used as

• antonym for the term ‘power state’ of the dictators

• differentiated from the laissez faire state and the communist state

• involved state activity for the provision of the basic needs of the individual

• Involved the process of levelling up by providing ‘the basic minimum’-a subsistence level – and a

process of levelling down, which socialism postulated

Yogakshema denoted:

• Yoga (addition to or furtherance of, and not the depletion of, all resources) and Kshema (well utilization

of resources) in all human pursuits.

• Yoga and Kshema were considered the sources of exertion and peaceful possession respectively. (6.II.1)

Material prosperity was never considered as an end in itself, instead it was believed that material

provisions are essential and it is the duty of state to ensure this.

• A policy of minimum state-welfare, leaving the individual to maximum of self-help. The state only

confined to help the helpless. It involves the well-being of the poorest of the poor.

The basis of Yogakshema:

• To ensure the moral and material well-being of its citizens

• Yogakshema of the citizens has its quintessence in perfection, freedom and self-realization

• Attainment of this perfection was to depend upon material, physical, moral and spiritual welfare

• Combined duty of the individual, society and the state to improve the lot of the citizens

• Yogakshema to be attained through:

1) Dharma (Varnashramadharma, Trivarga, Svadharma, and morality);

2) Danda (Power of rule); and

3) Family (as the basic unit of society).

Society in general and Family in particular

• To provide (through Varna & Ashrama) the best security network to take care of the old, the sick, the

disabled in the household

• Emphasis on Self-Employment, Self-Help & Self-Reliance

The State was expected to:

• Protect the ones in distress, the widows, the women without children, the women with infants, the

orphans, the sick and the indigent

• Create conditions for a good life not only by digging wells, canals, and constructing dams, planting

trees, preservation of forest, but also by providing the infrastructure for trade, commerce and industry

through construction of roads; providing impetus to navigation; rural and urban colonization and

settlement; monetary system and even control of weights and measures; regulation of commerce and

mines; protection of Guilds and Artisans

• Aspire for comprehensive social plan which aimed at realizing Dharma through Artha.

Kautilya’s Maxim

‘Prajaa Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam’

(In the welfare and happiness of the people lies the king’s welfare and happiness)

The State to conserve and consolidate its achievements, to maximize its gains and to promote proper and

equitable distribution of social gains through

• Trayee (the structure and knowledge constituted by the three Vedas: Rig, Yajur and Saama);

• Anvikshiki (the philosophical systems of the dualistic Samkhya and Yoga and the materialistic

philosophy of Lokayata);

• Varta (which comprehends agriculture, Cattle-breeding and trade) and

• Dandaniti (which is the mean to achieve Yogakshema, the welfare of all)

INTER-STATE RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY

Some Basic principles

• No state can exist in isolation

• No permanent friends & foes in Inter-state relations

• Bordering state can never be a friend

• Kingdom is an ally or enemy according to its geographical position with respect to the intending

conqueror

• A wise king, trained in politics, though in possession of only a small territory, can conquer the

Chaturanta Mahim with the help of the best elements of his sovereignty

Three categories of States

• Samraajya (State of equal status),

• Heenraajya (States of inferior status), and

• Balwaan Rajya (States of superior status)

Three Kinds of Strength

• Mantra Bal (intellectual strength/the power of deliberation),

• Prabhu Bal (sovereign power/possession of prosperous treasury)

• Utsaaha Bal (powerful army/physical strength)

The King to Increase his Power, in terms of

• Mantra-Siddhi (achievement of intellectual strength)

• Prabhu Siddhi (achievement of prosperous treasury)

• Utsaaha Siddhi (achievement of military and material strength)

Mandala Theory

Aiming at inter-state equilibrium as ‘a gigantic chess game in which certain moves were considered the

most effective methods of attaining a particular end’ (John Spellman)

THE THEORY OF MANDALA

1) Balance of power amongst 12 States

2) Vijigishu (the aspiring king)

3) Ari (the enemy of the Vijigishu)

4) Mitra (the friend of the Vijigishu)

5) Arimitra (the friend of the enemy)

6) Mitramitra (the friend of the friend)

7) Arimitramitra (the friend of the enemy’s friend)

8) Paarshnigraaha (one who attacks in the rear)

9) Aakranda (ally of the rear)

10) Paashnigraahaasaara (an ally of the rearward enemy)

11) Akrandasara (an ally of the rearward ally)

12) Madhyatma (inter-mediate / indifferent state)

13) Udaasina (neutral state)

Four Primary Circles of States

• Circle I Vijigishu (the conqueror), his friend and his friend’s friend;

• Circle II Ari (the enemy), his friend and his friend’s friend;

• Circle III Madhyama King (the indifferent king), his friend and his friend’s friend; and

• Circle IV Udaasina King (the neutral king, his friend and his friend’s friend.

Total Elements of States

• 12 kings (four primary circles of States include King, his friend and friend’s friend making it 4X3)

• 60 elements of sovereignty (possess the five elements of sovereignty such as the minister (Amatya),

the country (people and territory of Janapada), the fort (Durg), the treasury (Kosha) and the army

(Danda) making it 12 X 5) and

• 72 elements of States (12+ 60).

PEACE POLITICS : UPAAYAS

• Conciliation (Saama),

• giving presents (Dana),

• causing dissensions (Bheda), and

• war of punishment (Danda)

WAR TACTICS or SIX GUNAS (SHADGUNYAS)

• Sandhi (alliance),

• Vigraha (War),

• Yaan (Military expedition),

• Aasana (halting),

• Samashrya (seeking protection) and

• Dvedhibhaava (duplicity)

DIPLOMATIC SYSTEM

Three Types of Diplomats

• Nisrishtartha or plenipotentiary

• Parimitartha with definite instructions for a particular mission

• Shasanahara or royal messenger

Envoys had certain immunities

• Not to be killed

• Freedom of movement within the state

• To be allowed passage and

• Exempted from payment of all ferry and custom duties

ESPIONAGE SYSTEM

Baahya (external) and Aabhyantar (internal) Spies

Five institutions (Sansthas) of espionage

• Kaapatika-chhaatra (working under the guise of a fraudulent disciple);

• Udaasthita (a sham ascetic who has fallen from the real duties of asceticism);

• Grihapatika (a householder spy);

• Vaidehaka (a merchant spy); and

• Taapasa (a spy under the guise of an ascetic practising austerities)

Four types of wandering spies (Sanchaarah)

• Satri (classmate spies or spies learning by social intercourse);

• Tikshna (firebrands of fiery spies);

• Rasad (poisoners who are very cruel); and

• Bhikshuki (a woman ascetic)

WAR AS THE LAST RESORT OF DIPLOMACY

Three Types of Warfare

• Prakaash- Yuddha (Open war)

• Kuta-Yuddha (Treachrous war) and

• Tushnim-Yuddha (Silent war)

Three Types of Conquests

• Dharmavijaya (Just Conquest),

• Lobhavijaya (Greedy Conquest), and

• Asuravijaya (demon-like conquest)

In formulating the details of his political ideals, principles, plans and ethico-political strategies, Kautilya had

taken cognizance not only of the events of his days, but also the ones that were likely to change the entire

course of thought and action. That is why he and his Arthashastra have their marked relevance not only for

our times, but also for the generations to come.

Relevance of Kautilya’s Political Thought

• The Arthashastra is based only on available texts on polity but also on the experience and knowledge

that Kautilya acquired by his personal observations and study of the phenomena and institution around

him. He corrected his knowledge by observing and analysing practices and forms of governmental

institutions of that time. Kautilya's Arthashastra carries significance because for the first time it liberated

the science of politics from all sorts of limitations and developed a systematic tool of administration of

the state.

• The state described in Kautilya Arthashastra is elaborate and seeks to control every aspects of national

activity. Social life, trade, finance, civic activities, cultivation and almost every part of man's organised

life was considered by Kautilya to be within the legitimate sphere of administration. Kautilya regarded

the state to be of central importance in ensuring order in the affairs of society. He believed in a strong

centralizing state. For the good of the state, the king enjoyed freedom, meaning that he was free to

practice treachery, deceit and sacrilege if necessary.

• Social: Kautilya emphasized the effective role of the state in shaping man's moral, economic, social and

physical life. For the progress of the society, Kautilya believed in imparting education to the people. It

was the duty of the state to provide grants for education as an important constituent of state

expenditure. The teachers and school are to receive funds from the state to import education to the

people. Kautilya attached great importance to education. If the nation had to steer ahead, education the

masses was of great importance. The people of the state were to be well educated so that they could

lead the nation towards the path of progress. Education was universal and free.

• Kautilya’s State made several laws for the welfare of the society. A ban was imposed on the sale and

purchase of children as slaves. This shows his immense concern for child labour. Similarly, an employer

could not force a female slave to become naked or hurt or abuse her chastity. This indicates remarkable

human values which Kautilya cherished against slavery and thus guaranteeing civil rights to shudras. His

views related to children slavery and women liberty are significant in modern period because today every

state enacts laws against the child labour and for protection of women liberty.

• The State should protect the Dharma of the land as it was of fundamental importance. The duty of the

king consists in protecting his subjects with justice and its observance leads him to heaven. He who does

not protect his people or upsets the social order wields his royal sceptre in vain. It was for the first time

that Kautilya associated the shudras with certain civil rights which were not contemplated caste. He

permitted liberty to lower class as witnesses in the court. Kautilya recognized mixed castes and the claims

of the offspring of Pratiloma marriage for inheritance. There was no inflexible rigidity between the orders

and the destruction of the old nobility was the most significant feature of the Kautilya’s state.

• Economic: As a practical statesman, Kautilya looked at things from a realistic point of view and there is

nothing unnatural when we find his state extending its jurisdictions over almost all the spheres of life.

With all the limitations of the time, the state activity was not only unbounded but also distinctly socialistic

and highly beneficial to the people. The whole economic policy was regulated and controlled by the state.

The state offered doles to the needy. Kautilya believed that the stability and efficiency of state were

essential for human welfare.

• Kautilya's Arthashastra provides valuable basis for economic system. It contains useful ideas and policy

about economic. It can be used in our time to illustrate several modern economic ideas. In the economic

sphere, Kautilya suggests that the state should promote economic development in all spheres including

agriculture. For the promotion of economic sphere Kautilya laid down many responsibilities for the king

and state. The king shall carry on mining operations and manufactures, exploit timber, offer facilities for

cattle breeding and commerce, construct roads for traffic both by land and water and set up own market.

Kautilya allows private property and private ownership. Kautilya's economic system might fall under

'Mixed Economy System' as the state retained the right to interfere in case of loss of production, or

overproduction or workers problems. The state also regulated the trade to ensure good of the

consumers. Kautilya said the state accordingly has to regulate the prices of the commodities, import and

export, weight and measure etc. According to Kautilya unrestricted exports and imports or all

commodities were not allowed.

• Kautilya’s state assumed the nature of a welfare state. It not only regulated the economic activities but

also actively participated and at the same time controlled private enterprises in many ways. The state

owned all the natural resources and even the treasure troves belonged to the state. Kautilyan state was

interested in the promotion of trade and commerce and protected traders and merchants from the

molestation of workers, robbers, guards, civil servants and others. The state took measures to provide

avenues of employment to a large body of population.

• Judicial: No administrative system can be complete without a well-organised judicial system. Naturally,

Kautilya also could not overlook this aspect of administration. Judges were appointed at all important

centres to ensure the protection of life and property, as well as the trial and punishment of wrong doers.

• Kautilya was the first law-maker of ancient India who gave every individual right to judicial or protection.

The basic objective of Kautilya's law has been to provide intellectual and spiritual freedom to man.

Kautilya gives a detailed account of law. He makes a distinction between civil and criminal law.

• Political: According to Kautilya the welfare of a state depends on an active foreign policy. Kautilya was

quite original in prescribing a foreign policy based on expediency, diplomacy and war. His main objective

was to create a strong state which can establish the power of dominance over the other states. His

patriotism provoked him to create a powerful state which can defend itself against the invaders and

enemies.

• Kautilya’s a expertise in the state craft is evident from his concept of diplomacy which has been given in

'Mandala Theory' of foreign policy. His Mandala theory is a great contribution on the study of diplomacy.

The aim of Mandala theory is to maintain a balance of power with the other states. According to Kautilya,

the relations with other states are important because no state exists in isolation. In fact, every state is

competing with every other for land. This is the natural order where none is content with what he already

has .This implies that no state can be stable unless it takes care or its foreign relations. If such relations

are ignored, the state will soon fall a prey to conspiracy hatched by other princes. Kautilya attached great

importance of diplomacy in the interstate relation.

• Kautilya surrendered all moral principles to the wisdom of King and suggested double standard of

morality like Machiavelli to build a strong nation. Hence he suggested his king should be clever, shrewd,

cunning, deceitful, brave and courageous in foreign relations. By means of spies, dissension and discord

should be created in foreign policy.

• In this way Kautilya's views on state, government, law, justice system of administration, state function

and foreign relations are milestones in the political literature and provide guidelines for all generations.

• Kautilya's Arthashastra is the most important work on Public Administration in Ancient India. The science

of Public Administration mainly studies three parts: the principles of Public Administration, the

machinery of government and the personnel. The outline in Arthashastra about the relationship between

the science of Public Administration and the that of Economics and of government holds relevance even

today. Arthashastra deals with the perennial problem of 'acquiring and maintaining the earth'. The

supreme significance of this work lies in being the systematic optimization and constructive synthesis in

the political ideas and notions available in those days. Kautilya made politics an independent discipline.

He emphasized on the four sciences - first Anviksaki, or philosophy including the materialistic lokayate

system, secondly, the Tray, or triple Vedas, Rik, sama and yajus, thirdly varta or economics was concerned

with agriculture, cattle and trade and lastly Dandaniti or politics was the science of government of the

enforcement of law and order. Kautilya proclaimed that politics was the supreme science and supreme

art. It lay at the root of all. The welfare of all sciences depends on the well-being of politics.