The Arthashastra is an atypical text. For one, it is unlike the religious texts of that period in being quite precise and definite. One’s eyes might glaze over after reading some of the smritis , even the Upanishads, but the Arthashastra can easily hold the reader’s attention. Yet (this is also why it is atypical), it is not widely read or taught.
Written in prose 1,500 or 2,000 years ago — nobody is quite sure — the text is a set of books that are part constitution, part penal code, part taxation manual, part landscape manual, among other things. One bit on battle and positional warfare is like Sun Tzu’s The Art of War .
The work is credited to Kautilya, who may or may not be Chanakya, the Brahmin who is supposed to have orchestrated the defeat of the Nanda king in the Gangetic belt.
Comprehensive text
The Arthashastra was known through quotes in other historical works but the full text was unavailable till it was discovered on leaves by a librarian, R. Shamasastry, in the first decade of the 20th century. Shamasastry also translated it, followed by Professor R.P. Kangle a few years later.
I have the Penguin edition, edited and arranged by the former diplomat, L.N. Rangarajan. He has organised the work in the following way: the state and its constituent elements; the king; the nature of a well-organised state; the treasury, its sources of revenue accounts, and functions of audit; the civil service and its regulations; law, justice and punishment; covert operations; foreign policy; defence and war.
If it seems comprehensive, it is. And, of course, it is also shot through with considerations of caste, so much so that one has to hold one’s nose while reading much of it.
Many are familiar with only one part of the Arthashastra , which is, strangely enough, its smallest part: the section on foreign policy. Kautilya is thought to have said that an immediate neighbour is to be seen by the state/ king as an enemy while the neighbour’s neighbour is to be seen as a friend. A more interesting, and I daresay more relevant, section in the same book is the chapter on the weak king.
The weak king
Kautilya examines the options of one who is being threatened at the borders by a larger and more powerful neighbour. The text first quotes two previous writers on strategy (as is common through the Arthashastra , what has been said before is examined and critiqued). One is Bharadwaj, who counsels the weak king to surrender immediately; the other is Vishalakha, who advocates fighting to martyrdom. Kautilya advises neither course. Instead, he says that the king ought to submit to (“seek the protection of”) and ally with a more powerful ruler, who is stronger than the opponent. The idea of joining hands with the enemy’s enemy makes sense. Kautilya says one ought to be servile to the protector (“as a courtier to a king”), which may surprise those who think of kingship in terms of honour.
If an alliance is not possible, then surrender is the best option, says Kautilya. After surrender, care should be taken to give up assets that are not particularly useful or to use slow-acting poison on useful assets like elephants and horses.
This is the sort of practical advice that the Arthashastra is filled with and what makes it readable. But the fact remains that Kautilya (like Sun Tzu) is not theoretically sound on many issues, which might be one of the reasons why he hasn’t found the recognition he deserves.
Aakar Patel is a columnist and translator of Urdu and Gujarati non-fiction works.
