KAUTILYA'S AXIOM TO PEACE, POWER AND PROSPERITY - by MAHESH PRABHU

“Kautilya” or “Chanakya” inspires a great many of his admirers even to this day. A legend who played a pivotal role in building a great empire that unified India under a single rule – is often compared with 16th century renaissance author Niccolo Machiavelli. Although it could be considered– Kautilya was a genius way ahead of his time and had a vision beyond the statesmanship of the western world. It becomes evident when we read his version of Artha Shastra.

“Kautilya” or “Chanakya” inspires a great many of his admirers even to this day. A legend who played a pivotal role in building a great empire that unified India under a single rule – is often compared with 16th-century renaissance author Niccolo Machiavelli. Although it could be considered– Kautilya was a genius way ahead of his time and had a vision beyond the statesmanship of the western world. It becomes evident when we read his version of Artha Shastra.

As strange as it may sound Kautilya was not the author of Artha Shastra – he was a compiler, editor and commentator. His version of Artha Shastra was accidentally rediscovered in 1905 by R. Shamsastry who promptly published it in 1909. The first English translation came out in 1915.

Power – a subject which most authors today fail to explain – is meticulously taught in the Artha Sutras. “Lust, anger, greed, infatuation, ego and envy are the six elements if found in those who wield power, will fail to retain it.” Says Kautilya’s Artha Sutras. Also, “The person without these six elements is capable of manipulating power – unlike those who are manipulated by it.”

Yet the translations that are available do not do justice to the work. Perhaps the most influential as well as the engaging section of this magnum opus work is found at the end – Artha Sutras. Strange but true – scholars have failed to translate it effectively. Those who read them without substantial knowledge of Sanskrit or dharmic wisdom find themselves to be naïve.

This is because of the mistranslation of Sanskrit words like Sukha, Dharma, Artha, Rajyam and Indriya Vijayi. The first four axioms, or sutras, are as below:

Sukhasya Moolam Dharmaha 

Dharmasya Moolam Arthaha 

Arthasya Moolam Rajyam 

Rajyasya Moolam Indriyaanaam Vijayaha

When translated subtly they read as below:

Foundation of Happiness is Dharma 

Foundation of Dharma is Artha 

Foundation of Artha is Raajyam 

Foundation of Rajyam is Indriyaanam Vijayam

Unfortunately, since Dharma is oft translated as “religion”, Artha is mistaken to be “money”, Raajyam is mistaken for “state” people often translated it as below:

Foundation of Happiness is Religion 

Foundation of Religion is Money 

Foundation of Money is State

Foundation of State is winning over everyone’s senses

With such translations, their deeper meaning is lost! And as they are the foundation of all the following axioms or Sutras, they are often disregarded.

Such mistranslations happen because all Vedic texts, including Artha Shastra, are looked from the western perspective even by Indian “scholars” and not Vedic perspective – as they should be.

These short Sutras, or axioms, form the most comprehensive formulae to understanding, working with as well as retaining power for the greater good. Interestingly, these sutras can be applied for even destabilizing ruthless rulers. “Ruthlessness in rulers ensures their certain demise.” says Artha Sutras before mentioning, “If a self-restrained individual without qualities of lust, anger, greed, infatuation, ego and envy decides to take on such ruler – he’s bound to win sooner than later.”

Dharma is not a religion. Dharma is anything that is just – not only from an individual perspective but from the perspective of a greater good. Dharma is good Karma or deeds. Artha is wealth – not just money. Rajyam is governance – not state. Indriya Vijayam isn’t winning everyone’s sense – but controlling one’s own senses.

Given these right translations the hidden wisdom becomes clearer:

Foundation of Happiness is Good Deeds 

Foundation of Good Deeds is Wealth. 

Foundation of Wealth is Governance. 

Governance is best administered by those who are self-controlled.

With deeper examination and by revisiting history, the deeper meaning of these axioms is obvious. Interestingly, Kautilya’s Artha Shastra was written around 2^ndCentury BCE. Over 2,000 years before today. The earlier versions of Artha Shastra, which were edited by earlier teachers of Rajaneeti, including Bharadwaja, Vishalaksha, Parashara,  Shukracharya, Manu and Pishuna, are long lost. However, Kautilya first mentioned them, before agreeing or disagreeing with them. Artha Sutras were not invented by Kautilya but rewritten for greater clarity and relevance It means that some of these Sutras could more than 4,000 years old. This is important because modern education has failed to bring in a proper system of teaching politics to aspiring students.

Interestingly, Kautilya’s Artha Shastra was written around 2^nd Century BCE. Over 2,000 years before today. The earlier versions of Artha Shastra, which were edited by earlier teachers of Rajaneeti, including Bharadwaja, Vishalaksha, Parashara, Manu and Pishuna, are long lost. However, Kautilya first mentioned them, before agreeing or disagreeing with them. Artha Sutras were not invented by Kautilya; but rewritten for greater clarity and relevance It means that some of these Sutras could more than 4,000 years old. This is important because modern education has failed to bring in a proper system of teaching politics to the aspiring students.

Most of the colleges and schools on “Political Science” teach political history – at best. Ancient Indian or Vedic people were ahead of times in terms of administration and leadership succession. This is not surprising if we remember that India was once called the “golden dove” owing to its prosperity. This colossal prosperity attracted Islamic maunders, Arab merchants, European trading enterprises and the like to India. If not for its prosperity – there would have been no reason for their fatal attraction to this land. Prosperity seldom happens by itself – it’s a result of efficient governance. And those in the governance across various kingdoms in the subcontinent followed the principles of Artha Sutras.

These Sutras were the fundamental axioms that students of Rajaneeti were made to memorize at a time when lasting instruments of recording words weren’t present. Smriti (memorizing) and Shruti (hearing) were the two ways by which these texts were handed down over generations for centuries.

Because they are ancient – some people question their viability to work in the present-day globalized economic scenario. The question is fair. While there definitely are significant advances in technology in terms of information transmission and reception – fundamentally the quality of people thoughts, desires and actions have remained the same.

There were diseases then – there are diseases now; there were greed and corruption then – it’s there now too. People were violated by ruthless rulers then – so they are now. While the outer quality of life may have improved – the inner sufferings haven’t changed much. In the end, politics is still a game of resilience, strength, patience, persistence and, importantly, power manipulation. These are best taught by the Rajaneeti of Artha Shastra and Artha Sutras in particular.

Because they are ancient – some people question their viability to work in the present-day globalized economic scenario. The question is fair. While there definitely are significant advances in technology in terms of information transmission and reception – fundamentally the quality of people thoughts, desires and actions have remained the same.

With over 500 axioms – many more than the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali – it presents a clear picture as to how happiness is understood, attained and retained through the appropriate application of knowledge and skills to access power and employ it appropriately.

Power – a subject which most authors today fail to explain – is meticulously taught in the Artha Sutras. “Lust, anger, greed, infatuation, ego, and envy are the six elements if found in those who wield power, will fail to retain it.” Says Kautilya’s Artha Sutras. Also, “The person without these six elements is capable of manipulating power – unlike those who are manipulated by it.”

One of the most significant challenges of leadership is putting the right team in place. “The king should only employ those who are second best to him.” says another axiom. “If a king employs someone better than himself, then he must take care to find a counterweight to that person for there will be a threat to his seat of power.” The following axiom declares “The greatest threat to a king is through his own people –  ministers.”Also, “King is as competent as all of his ministers.” And “A king is only stable until his ministers feel insecure in their position.”

These short Sutras, or axioms, form the most comprehensive formulae to understanding, working with as well as retaining power for the greater good. Interestingly, these sutras can be applied for even destabilizing ruthless rulers. “Ruthlessness in rulers ensures their certain demise.” says Artha Sutras before mentioning, “If a self-restrained individual without qualities of lust, anger, greed, infatuation, ego, and envy decides to take on such ruler – he’s bound to win sooner than later.”

On realizing the greater wisdom hidden in these Sutras, a person can feel enlightened about the means and nature of power before applying it for peace and prosperity – not just for himself – but for the world, at large. It, therefore, becomes important that we revisit, learn and propagate this knowledge of Kautilya’s Artha Sutras for the better world we so desire to create.

  

Courtesy: https://www.vedic-management.com/decoding-artha-sutras-kautilyas-axiom-to-peace-power-and-prosperity/

CHANAKYA AND FUNCTIONAL MANAGEMENT IN TIMES OF CHANGE - Vinod Kumar K

 

Article Courtesy: http://www.journalijar.com/uploads/5f3bbd067b451_IJAR-32889.pdf

At the present era of Liberalised, Privatised and Globalised (LPG) dynamic business environment and competition, the success of an organisation depends upon the effective strategies framed by such organisation. Management is a continuous process and it involves numerous functions and the management focuses more on developing strategies and policies for the best possible performance of the business. While developing the strategies and policies, the management is facing many problems and issues that make difficult the effective management of the organisation. In this context of contemporary relevance of management, the various functions of management like finance, human resource management etc. is originated and practiced from ancient dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya. During this period, the Finance Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, Chanakya practiced many strategies and practices focusing on Financial Management, Human Resource Management, Strategic Management which are base of the modern scientific principles and practices in these relevant areas of management of an organisation. He wrote a book, Arthasasthra, which denotes many references regarding the principles of management of an organisation, especially the Financial Management and Accounting.

......................................................................................................................

Introduction:-
About Chanakya:
During the Mayura era, Chandragupta Maurya was the emperor of Magadha. At that time, Chanakya was the political guru of emperor Chandragupta. Because of the strategic skill and political wisdom he possessed, that efficient political thinker was christened Chanakya. The childhood name of Chanakya was Vishnugupta. Due to his extremely sharp wit, he came to be known as Chanakya. Because he was an astute, wily political manipulator, he came to be known as Kautilya. Indian history is unable to give the correct detail about his birthplace. His education was completed in the Takshsila University. Chandragupta and Chanakya were contemporaries. It was the time of 325 BC, Chanakya led a very simple life. He used to live outside the main city, in a small hut. Kautilya had written Artha Shastra, Laghu Chanakya, Vriddha Chanakya, Chanakya Neeti etc. to educate the politicians in the art and craft of politics.

Accounting and Financial Management in Arthasastra:

In the classic work Arthashastra, Kautilya gave detailed instructions regarding accounting and auditing of the state finances. According to him “all undertakings depends on finance. Hence foremost attention shall be paid to the treasury”.

Kautilya's contributions to accounting may be classified under four headings: (i) the development of principles of accounting, (ii) the specification of the scope and methodology accounting, (iii) the codification of financial rules and regulations and the creation of an organizational structure to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest, and (iv) the role of ethics in the restraint of fraudulent accounting (often spawned by excessive greed), in the maintenance of law and order, the efficient allocation of resources, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mattessich [1998] sheds light on Kautilya's contributions under the first heading. He identifies elements of modern principles of accounting in Kautilya's Arthashastra and shows that it contains more accounting theory than Luca Pacioli's. Kautilya considered explanation and prediction as the objectives of analytical inquiries related to accounting. it is argued that he did not recommend separating accounting from economics. Kautilya understood the importance of the accurate measurement of economic performance to economic growth. He linked decisions on production and trade patterns to profitability and implicitly considered innovation in accounting methods as a general-purpose technology , which improved the efficiency of the whole economy. Kautilya's ideas on the importance of the financial health of the Treasury to achieve the various objectives of the state.

The content of Kautilya's work indicates that the prerequisites for the establishment of the discipline of accounting already existed in India during 4th century B.C.E.. Kautilya used fractions, percentages, summation and subtraction operations, and even permutations and combinations quite extensively, displaying a deep knowledge of arithmetic. He developed not only bookkeeping rules but also the procedures for preparing periodic income statements and budgets and performing independent audits

Kautilya added, "In the absence of fruitful economic activity, both current prosperity and future growth are in danger of destruction. A king can achieve the desired objectives and abundance of riches by undertaking productive economic activity " He advanced the hypothesis that the pursuit of productive activities was the key to stabilization of the current income and its rapid growth in the future

Incentives to Encourage Creation of Wealth in the Private Sector: Kautilya explored all possible means of creating wealth. He suggested many policies to encourage capital formation in the private sector. For example, he recommended (i) Tax Holidays: "Any one who brings new land under cultivation shall be granted exemption from payment of agricultural taxes for a period of two years. For building or improving irrigation facilities exemption from water rates shall be granted" (ii) Full Protection of Private Property Rights: Kautilya wrote "The wealth of the state shall be one acquired lawfully either by inheritance or by the king's efforts." He added, "Water works such as reservoirs, embankments and tanks can be privately owned and the owner shall be free to sell or mortgage them." (iii) Concessionary Loans: He recommended, the cultivators shall be granted grains, cattle and money which they can repay at their convenience." (iv) Duty Free Imports: Kautilya suggested "Any items that, at his discretion, the Chief Controller of Customs, may consider to be highly beneficial to the country (such as rare seeds) are to be exempt from import duties.

According to Kautilya "increasing the wealth of the State: ensuring the prosperity of state activities; continuing well tried policies; eliminating theft; keeping strict control over government employees, increasing agricultural production; promoting trade; avoiding troubles and calamities; reducing exemptions and remissions and increasing cash income. Obstruction, misuse of government property and false accounting by government servants lead to a reduction of wealth.

Kautilya emphasized heavily the financial health of the state and understood that a sound treasury was a prerequisite to accomplishing other goals. He stated, "All state activities depend first on the Treasury. Therefore, a King shall devote his best attention to it. A King with a depleted Treasury eats into the very vitality of the citizens and the country." In fact, according to Kautilya, a King should begin his day by receiving "reports on defense, revenue and expenditure. According to Kautilya, therefore, a king must carefully manage the financial affairs of the state.

Kautilya in his Sutras advances these hypotheses: "Fortune follows human effort. Prosperity depends on the intellect. Intellect depends on education." Kautilya was aware that an efficient allocation of resources depended on appropriate measurements of profits, which were critical to enhancing economic growth.

Findings:

The above discussions are showing that Kautilya gave importance for all functions of book keeping and accounting, including recording transactions , measurement of Income of the economic activity both for the public and private sector. He gave utmost importance for the modern financial management objective of wealth maximisation, and all other functions of financial management includes Investment decisions, financing decisions ( lending of loans, raising funds for economic activity), fiscal and risk-return decisions during those days itself. He gave importance for the co-existence of public and private sector enterprises. He advised the King to implement the tax holidays, collection of taxes without any deviation, providing loans and advances to the farmers and other people for creating wealth. All these evidences showing that all the modern accounting and financial management techniques, modern government functions including the fiscal, banking, incentives for industry and thereby increasing the economic growth of both the Government and private sector was evolved and practiced during the ancient India especially during the period of Kautilya as a Minister of Chandragupta Maurya. In short all these discussions are evident that there was systematic and scientific approach towards the economy, Accounting, treasury management (Financial Management), co-existence of Public and Private sector, well developed fiscal policy and tax holidays, providing loans and advances to the needy people and all measures for the economic growth and thereby wealth maximisation was practiced during the period of Arthasastra.

Personnel Management in Arthasastra: Staffing:

, organizing and control

For the efficient performance of other functions of

the competent personnel, then it cannot perform the functions of management like planning

management,staffingisitskey.Since, ifanorganizationdoesnothave

functions properly.

The first and foremost function of staffing is to obtain qualified personnel for different jobs position in the organization.

In staffing, the right person is recruited for the right jobs, therefore it leads to maximum productivity and higher performance.

It helps in promoting the optimum utilization of human resource through various aspects.
Job satisfaction and morale of the workers increases through the recruitment of the right person. Staffing helps to ensure better utilization of human resources.
It ensures the continuity and growth of the organization, through development managers.

Human Resource Management According to Chanakya:
Identifying a Person:
The success or failure of a person/organisation depends heavily up on his capability of identifying the right person. If an organisation is able to find the right person, one’s way to success becomes very smooth.

Chanakya has given many formulas to recognize a person.

A person should be tested on the grounds of wisdom and guess. If a person has neither any knowledge about a given piece of work nor done any similar piece of work in the past, it becomes too difficult for that person to be successful in that particular work realm. So, while choosing a person for any kind of work, due consideration should be given to his wisdom and experience. This principle is known as the 'Division of Work' which are proposed by Henri Fayol in his famous 14 Principles of management.

Regarding testing of a person : Those people who remain with you even during your bad times, are your true well- wishers. Hence, you should invest your faith only in such people. The ones, who did not give you support during such (tough) times, should never be trusted in the future.

Management Guru Chanakya has clearly written in Chanakya Neethi about the process of recognizing and testing a person who is to be trusted regarding a piece of work. Kautilya says that gold is tested by grinding, cutting, heating

and beating. Similarly, man is tested on the basis of his sacrifice, perseverance, virtues and deeds. A good, noble man is one who has good virtues. His deeds are visible good , output is also very good and up to the mark. Hence, such types of person can be trusted.

He said that we should not give any importance to the tasks done by the foolish people. This should be a typical basis for recognizing a person. There is always a possibility that a person may perform a piece of work inadvertently. Despite this, he may not realize how he was able to do that piece of work. So, a person should not be selected only on the basis of one particular piece of work; rather, it should be a basis for the continuation of his work.

According to him, a person, who does not follow the rules of society, should never be trusted because he can go to any extent. The right person is the one who respects the rules of society.

If an enemy does something good for you, beware of him. He says that there must be a secret in this action of your enemy. Some point of time, your enemy may have a genuine change of heart. Such person should initially be given a piece of work of less importance. If he performs it honestly, he should be allotted other assignments. Also keep special vigil at every step that is involved. If he is up to something fishy, he would not succeed in spoiling your apple-cart.

Trusting those people is risky who are not being tested in a proper manner. Having faith in a person without testing him means inviting trouble.

A foolish person harms even his own well wishers. If you judge a person and consequently, find him to be foolish, never trust him. Trusting him would only earn disrespect and harm for you. If a genuine person is allotted a job, he will be successful in completing the job and you will be benefited too. You should not align foolish people with you because they have a negative approach. Howsoever good you may do for them, they would always adopt the evil path. That is why a person, who does something good for a foolish people, is ultimately harmed by those very people. That is why Chanakya repeatedly suggests that we should remain away from such foolish people.

Chanakya suggests to avoid wicked people while recognizing the right persons. Such people are least bothered about success or failure; and they fail others too. As they do not bother about criticism, they remain unharmed but the genuine person accompanying them has to bear the damage caused by them.

Wicked people have the inherent tendency to tease good people. These people don’t hesitate to deceive even their well-wishers. Acharya suggests that we remain extra careful with such people.

Management Guru Chanakya has made it quite clear wicked people never learn. We must not preach the wicked. Acharya says that a wicked man always remain wicked. All efforts to convince him go in vain. You give him knowledge and he would ill-treat you. It is just like giving mil to a snake; he shall bite you even after drinking milk. So, do not waste your time and labour to make such people understand. Instead look for a capable person, even if you have spend more time to look for him.

Leadership:

Leadership is a process by which an executive can direct, guide and influence the behavior and work of others towards accomplishment of specific goals in a given situation. Leadership is the ability of a manager to induce the subordinates to work with confidence and zeal.

Leadership is the potential to influence behaviour of others. It is also defined as the capacity to influence a group towards the realization of a goal. Leaders are required to develop future visions, and to motivate the organizational members to want to achieve the visions.

According to Keith Davis, “Leadership is the ability to persuade others to seek defined objectives enthusiastically. It is the human factor which binds a group together and motivates it towards goals.”

The capability to lead is a compulsory virtue required to excel in any field. One, who possesses this capability, is never short of success; and people always follow him. Acharya has given many mantras that should be included in our lives to develop this capability. This will make your way to success quite easy.

A person should be allotted only that piece of work in which he specializes. This is important from the viewpoint of leadership quality. He should give the task as per the capability of the persons he is handling. This gives you two benefits, firstly, the task at hand is accomplished properly and you are appreciated. Secondly, the person, who performs the work, also matures. His self confidence increases and under normal circumstances, he gives the credit to his leader.

A sweet natured person is insulted by even those who are dependent up on him. Acharya Chanakya clearly says that being sweet natured is not a bad concept. But while managing politics, government sector firms or organizations this trait has an adverse effect.

If your subordinate commits a mistake, you must punish him but the level of the punishment should be on the basis of the gravity of his mistake. Harsh punishment should not be given for a trivial mistake. A good leader should always keep this precept in his mind.

All leaders must have the capability inside them to identify the right type of people. A good leader would try to get positive vibes or messages even from negative, wily things. If the thinking is negative, even good things, would appear to be ineffective.

The right leader has a fine identification point, he is competent for making incapable people fully capable.
Leaders must not trust wily, foxy persons even by mistake. If we trust a wily person and allocate a task to him, God knows, when he may create chaos. According to Chanakya "a wily , dirty person and a snake both are dangerous". That means a trecherous , foxy man is more dangerous than even a snake. Chanakya believes that the snake bites only once but a wily man bites at each and every step.

Leaders must also understand that the capacity and nature of every person are different. It would not be appropriate to expect the same behaviour, response or output from all of them. Hence, the leaders must allocate the tasks according to the nature of the employee.

The good leader should be capable of finding the right people and only then he would be able to complete his work and reap positive results. One of the basic quality of a leader is that he should take the responsibility of failure just as he takes the credit of success.

For a successful leader, it is also important to supervise the task allotted by him to others. In case there is a problem, he should lead the team from the front. Such behaviour incorporates the feeling of respect for the leader in the heart of the person who was given a piece of work to execute.

Strategic Skills in Management:

Management Guru Chanakya has given excellent guidelines about strategic skills. Whoever has worked out an effective strategy and implemented the same in a proper manner, has become successful. Chanakya has given the methods for developing strategic skills which are required in every field -political, business or personal life.

According to Chanakya " powerful should attack the weak. He tells us that work should be taken up by us according to our capabilities. According to him fighting against the powerful is like battling on foot against a regiment of elephants. Hence, right strategy would be to gain strength to challenge the threat.

Chanakya says that when two unbaked earthen vessels collided with each other, they are destroyed. This is one of the important mantra of Chanakya, according to him if, two immature or weak organisations are compete each other, that will be harm to both the organisation and it is better to maintain cordial relations each other. This strategy is widely applicable in the present era of competition and results in various business combinations. According to him we should keep on reviewing the efforts of your rivals and waiting for the right opportunity to against your rival and for this the thoroughly informed decisions and strategies are vital and it is appropriate to formulate or make changes

in our plans and strategies only after knowing the complete knowledge of the changes in the plans and strategies of the rivals. According to Chanakya we must never show our own weakness to anyone.

All the above discussions and preaches of Chanakya are relevant in the contemporary strategic management scenario. Now a days formulation and implementation of the appropriate and adequate strategies and acquiring the strategic skills are very vital for the efficient operation of an enterprise. All the strategic skills like leadership, communication, tactics and motivation are very essential for the efficient running of an enterprise.

Chanakya gave detailed account of recongnising the appropriate time to complete the work successfully. According to him, everybody knows that there is an appropriate time to do a particular piece of work. The success of any person/organisation depends heavily upon efficiency. The more one is efficient, the more one is successful. According to him, we must start any piece of work after determination, unstable mind cannot complete any piece of work. He specifies the importance of utilising the available resources in an appropriate and apt manner. He says that contempt of available resources is violation of work. He highlighted that one should not hesitate in learning from any person. Besides, he must also note that every person has some specialisation or the other.

From the above discussions, we can conclude that the modern principles of management like Division of Labour (Specialisation), Optimum and efficient utilisation of resources, performing the right task at the right time, unity of direction and control, team work, discipline, participative decision making after consulting the lower level employees, communication , supervision and similar contemporary principles and techniques are proposed by Chanakya and practiced during his regime and that will be treated as the base of the systematic and scientific management.

Chanakya, in his book, Arthasasthra gave detailed account of other relevant areas of management consisting of recognition of appropriate time, importance of character, efficiency, recognising circumstances, importance of knowledge, importance of wealth, friendship, patience, company, hard work, getting rid of laziness, giving up addiction, pleasant talk, confidentiality, know yourself , taking tough decision etc. which are applicable in the management of business enterprises and later pave way to many theories and principles in the area of management.

References:-

1. Shekhar Himanshu (2010), Management Guru Chanakya, 1st Edition, Diamond Books (P) Ltd. New Delhi.

2. Subramanian, V. K. (1980), Maxims of Chanakya (New Delhi: Shakti Malik, Abhinav Publications), 2000

   reprint.

3. Kangle, R. P. (1965), The Kautilya Arthasastra, Part III (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass), 2000 reprint.

4. Sihag S Balbir, Kautilya on the Scope and Methodology of Accounting Organisatinal Design and the role of

   Ethics in Ancient India , Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 31, No.2, December, 2004 retrieved from

   https://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/sihag-kautilya-accounting.pdf

5. Mattessich, R. (1998), "Review and Extension of Bhattacharya's Modern Accounting Concepts in Kautilya's

   Arthasastra," Accounting, Business & Financial History, Vol. 8, No. 2: 191-209.

6. Mattessich, R. (2000), The Beginnings of Accounting and Accounting HistoryAccounting Practice in the

   Middle East (8000 B. C. to 2000 B. C.) and Accounting Thought in India (300 B. C. and the Middle Ages) (New York: Garland Publishing).

Chanakya and Machiavelli - Two Realists in Comparison - Jaideep A Prabhu

 

Article courtesy: https://swarajyamag.com/featured/chanakya-and-machiavelli-two-realists-in-comparison

Così nasce dal ferro un secol d’oro (Thus from iron was born a golden age) – Jacopo Nardi

Politics is not a place to save one’s soul, but it is the only place one may save one’s nation – Max Weber

“Politics,” Ronald Reagan once said, “is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.” Today, the former US president’s words may seem trite, but a few centuries ago, such sentiments would have had serious repercussions. The publication of The Prince, for example, resulted in violent reactions in Europe—its author, Niccolò Machiavelli, was burnt in effigy by the Jesuits, his books were blacklisted and penned into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum by the Inquisition in Rome, and several books were written to denounce Machiavelli’s “dangerous” and “immoral” teachings.

This prophet of statecraft and diplomacy, however, for many scholars of political theory remains one of the brightest names coming out of Italy during the fecund period of the renaissance. It would be an interesting and profitable exercise to juxtapose Machiavelli’s works on statecraft and diplomacy, The Art of War, Discourses on Livy, and the (in)famous The Prince, in which he opined on how a state should be run, with the Indian realist Chanakya’s Arthashastra . In the Western tradition, these of Machiavelli’s works are considered the principal texts of realism in diplomatic manoeuvring. Chanakya, who is also known to history as Kautilya or Vishnugupta, was the advisor to Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan Empire in 321 BCE after defeating the Nanda dynasty and Alexander the Great’s ambassadors in northern India. The Arthashastra, written circa 320 BCE[1], was rediscovered in 1904 by R. Shamasastry and translated into English by 1915. Oddly, this text has remained neglected despite the exuberant efforts of British and German “Indomaniacs” of the imperialist era. By juxtaposing it with Machiavelli’s thoughts, I hope to reintroduce the Arthashastra to mainstream political chitchat and in the process of doing so, diminish the farcical asinine notion of an intellectual divide between “East” and “West.”

It is important to understand why these particular texts were chosen. After all, there exist umpteen books just in the West on statecraft and political power. Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, James Harrington’s The Commonwealth of Oceana, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract, to name a few, all deal explicitly with the same subject. In a circuitous manner, so do Karl Marx’s Das Kapital and Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. And of course, Machiavelli himself studied Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s The Republic and Laws. The Islamic World offers Al-Farabi’s Aphorisms of the State, Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah, Averroes’ The Decisive Treatise Determining the Nature of the Connection between Religion and Philosophy, and Avicenna’s The Healing. However, Machiavelli’s works make a good comparison to the Arthashastra because like Chanakya, Machiavelli makes a distinction between ethics and political science. Unlike the aforementioned theorists, neither Machiavelli nor Chanakya are interested in the ideal state or the fullest moral development of political men. They are more concerned with the security of the state against external threats and internal harmony. Furthermore, despite other works on politics and statecraft, Machiavelli represents, in the West, the first clear break with idealism and morality, and is the first to suggest that the root of state power is force.[2] For Machiavelli, as Harvey Mansfield notes, as for Chanakya, the fundamental fact is how the prince rules instead of who rules.[3]

The texts, due to the environment in which they were written, permit only some lateral comparisons. Christian Europe was socially quite different from early Hinduism, and the ordering of society as prescribed by the Manusmriti allowed Chanakya to come to different conclusions than Machiavelli regarding domestic policies. Therefore, I am more concerned with the commentaries on foreign policy in the texts, where there are more similarities.

Regarding the Governance of States

Central to the state is strong leadership. Chanakya and Machiavelli both conclude that legitimacy is very important to the ruler as well as the subjects because legitimacy purports an authority that does not exist in practice. The Arthashastra does not spend much time discussing the legitimacy of the ruler, but simply implies that the first ruler had divine origins:

People, overwhelmed by the law of the fishes,[4] made Manu, son of Vivasvat, their king. And they assigned one-sixth of the grains, one-tenth of the commodity and money as his share. Maintained by that, kings bring about the well-being and security of the subjects.[5]

Vivasvat, according to RP Kangle, is a reference to the sun god. This is not the same as the divine right of kings as understood in Europe. Chanakya uses Hindu cosmology to sanction the monarchy as the preferred system of government. Implied is the sanctity of the king even though he is not divine, and although the king is the final arbiter of the land, he is to be aided by an able system—the Arthashastra divides the state into seven components: svamin (the ruler), amatya (the minister), janapada (the territory with the people settled on it)[6], durga (the fortified capital), kosa (the treasury), danda (the army), and mitra (the ally).[7] The Arthashastra declares, “One wheel alone does not turn and keep the cart in motion.”[8] Machiavelli also comments on the notion of divine authority, but more as a gimmick to lend authority to the ruler beyond his physical means. Machiavelli notes in the Discourses,

…although we have seen that Romulus could organize the Senate and establish other civil and military institutions without the aid of divine authority, yet it was very necessary for Numa, who feigned that he held converse with a nymph, who dictated to him all that he wished to persuade the people to; and the reason for all this was that Numa mistrusted his own authority, lest it should prove insufficient to enable him to introduce new and unaccustomed ordinances in Rome. In truth, there never was any remarkable lawgiver amongst any people who did not resort to divine authority, as otherwise his laws would not have been accepted by the people; for there are many good laws, the importance of which is known to the sagacious lawgiver, but the reasons for which are not sufficiently evident to enable him to persuade others to submit to them; and therefore do wise men, for the purpose of removing this difficulty, resort to divine authority.[9]

Although Chanakya does not explicitly state a similar opinion, his use of the sun god to imply divine authority indicates that he would have agreed with Numa and Machiavelli. As Machiavelli states, “the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”[10] For Machiavelli, however, options other than a monarchy exist, though he thinks it difficult to advocate rule by more than one man except in strained circumstances. In the Discourses, Machiavelli states that a “dictatorship, whenever created according to public law and not usurped by individual authority, always proved beneficial…it is the magistracies and powers that are created by illegitimate means which harm a republic, and not those that are appointed in the regular way.”[11] He further describes three forms of government in their healthy and corrupt states: monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic, “liable to be corrupted that they become absolutely bad…monarchy becomes tyranny; aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy; and the popular government lapses readily into licentiousness.”[12] In The Prince, Machiavelli very lucidly outlines the strengths and weaknesses of rule by one man and rule by an oligarchy:

The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord…But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords…he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him…but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of this prince…The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men…can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you.

Noteworthy is the emphasis Machiavelli places on conquest. For a ruler to create opportunities for other benefits to his people, he must first guard the realm, and if possible, expand his territory and sphere of influence. Like Chankaya, the primary responsibility of a ruler for Machiavelli is the security and well-being of his people. While Machiavelli states unequivocally that “[a] prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline,”[13] Chanakya concurs, adding, “Carrying out his own duty by the king, who protects the subjects according to law, leads to heaven; of one who does not protect…the condition is the reverse of this.”[14] The Arthashastra comments on the duties of a king other than the security of the realm because it was intended to be a full-fledged manual for statecraft, not just a guide to foreign policy. The duty of an Arthashastran king is expressed not in terms of rakshana (to defend) or palana (take care of), but yogakshema. This includes not only security and material well-being, but also assistance in adherence to the purusharthas. The Purusharthas are the four principles of Hindu life, namely, dharma, artha, kama, and moksha. It was the king’s duty to ensure that his subjects could lead a life of honesty and justice (dharma), have opportunities to make gains in terms of education, employment, etc., (artha), be able to enjoy their lives through the arts and other sensual pleasures (kama), and hopefully, develop spiritually to eventually attain freedom from the cycle of rebirth (moksha).[15] It is in the pursuit of this aim that Chanakya talks of foreign policy.

Although Machiavelli does not set his prince such high standards, much of Chanakya’s thinking holds true for him too. While Chanakya, a brahmin, is firmly set in Hindu philosophy and sees the world through the spectacles of Hindu cosmology, Machiavelli describes the world through human nature, the ends both advocate being quite similar. The foundation of Machiavelli’s political thought is revealed in one line in The Prince: “The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed.”[16] Although political equilibrium is the ideal a prince should strive for, it remains illusory and “all human things are kept in a perpetual movement, and can never remain stable, states naturally either rise or decline.”[17] Machiavelli’s argument follows that since interstate relations are always dynamic and every state seeks expansion of its powers, it is best that one’s own state maintains a position of strength. Furthermore, Machiavelli, like Chanakya, sees beyond the reign of one king to the stability of the realm. For Machiavelli, a prince should endeavour to not only secure his domain during his time but even after him. As Louis Althusser explained, “Machiavelli is interested in only one form of government: the one that allows a state to last.”[18] In Machiavelli’s own words, “[t]he welfare, then, of a republic or a kingdom does not consist in having a prince who governs it wisely during his lifetime, but in having one who will give it such laws that it will maintain itself even after his death.”[19] Similarly, the Arthashastra has “avowedly for its end the security and prosperity of the state.”[20] Chanakya advises that a king should not install on the throne one who is unfit to rule even if he is an only son.[21] The ultimate goal of the king and his government is the health of the state, not the lineage of the ruling family. This is not to say that Chanakya does not favour the law of primogeniture: he does. He even countenances a family oligarchy if a calamity were to befall the Kingship. However, he is insistent that an unfit person should not rule. According to one scholar, Chanakya’s work “deals with a monarchical constitution.”[22] Thus, Chanakya’s loyalty is to the state and not to any ruling family. This offers a counter to those who see Chanakya’s treatise as promoting monarchy holding dictatorial powers.

On Defence and the Military

Machiavelli’s thoughts on the actual conduct of warfare are as detailed as Chanakya’s but are in another work of his, The Art of War. It is similar in nature to Sun Tzu’s most famous work by the same name. The Arthashastra devotes eight of its fifteen chapters to various aspects of war, diplomacy, foreign policy, espionage, and covert operations. Needless to say, the conduct of war is seen as central to the well-being of a state. This does not mean that these political theorists were warmongers—on the contrary, Machiavelli declares in The Art of War that “he who practices [war] will never be judged to be good, as to gain some usefulness from it at any time he must be rapacious, deceitful, violent, and have many qualities, which of necessity, do not make him good.”[23] And yet he also states that a prince must “not depart from the good, when possible, but know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity.”[24] Although Chanakya does not explicitly speak against war, he is very much aware that peace is essential for the stability of any political system. Like Machiavelli, he stresses that war be used as the last resort as it causes loss of money and life. Machiavelli warns,

The object of those who make war, either from choice or ambition, is to conquer and to maintain their conquests, and to do this in such a manner as to enrich themselves and not to impoverish the conquered country. To do this, then, the conqueror should take care not to spend too much, and in all things mainly to look to the public benefit.[25]

Similarly, “[i]f there is equal advancement in peace or war,” Chanakya declares, “[one] should resort to peace.”[26] The whole purpose of Chanakya’s foreign policy is to increase one’s power at the cost of one’s enemies. Power, Chanakya takes care to define, is of three kinds: the power of knowledge is the power of counsel, the power of the treasury and the army is the power of might, the power of valour is the power of energy.[27] Thus, warfare need not be the only means to increase power. However, if it came to war, Chanakya saw three kinds of warfare that could be waged: open war (traditional war), concealed war (guerrilla war), and silent war (openly praising the enemy while sending spies to assassinate him, sabotage his kingdom, and sowing dissention among his officials).[28] Chanakya sees four strategies through which power can be exercised: saama (peace), daana (gift), bheda (dissention), and danda (force). As a result, Chanakya discusses issues of military strategy as part of his chapter on foreign policy and diplomacy. Chanakya would agree with Karl von Clausewitz that war was the continuation of politics by other means. In fact, he delineates six measures of conducting foreign policy: entering into a treaty (peace), doing injury (war), remaining indifferent (neutrality), submitting to another (seeking shelter), and resorting to peace with one foe and war with another (dual policy).[29] Obviously, peaceful negotiation was best, followed by the giving of gifts, sowing dissention among the enemy, and finally war. When war came, Chanakya advised that it be fought as chivalrously as possible. If one was stronger than one’s opponent, one should follow the rules of warfare. If one was equal or weaker than one’s aggressor, one should recourse to any means necessary to attain victory. Chanakya even countenanced crops and stores to be burnt down, trees to be cut, and civilians to be captured as part of his total war.[30]

Machiavelli echoed such thoughts himself. Machiavelli’s advice to his prince is that “there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second.”[31] Even more clearly, in the Discourses, he writes,

And doubtless, if the Florentines had attached their neighbours to themselves by treaties of amity, or by rendering them assistance, instead of frightening them off, they would now be the undisputed masters of Tuscany. I do not mean to say by this, however, that arms and force are never to be employed, but that they should be reserved as the last resort when other means fail.[32]

“Although deceit is detestable in all other things,” Machiavelli writes, “yet in the conduct of war it is laudable and honourable; and a commander who vanquishes an enemy by stratagem is equally praised with one who gains victory by force.”[33] He emphasises again that “one’s country must be defended, whether with glory or with shame; it must be defended anyhow.”[34] Machiavelli, many scholars seem to agree, represents a departure from the humanist values of non-violent diplomacy. Felix Gilbert’s seminal book on the politics of the chaotic period between the first expulsion of the Medici from Florence to their second expulsion, Machiavelli and Guicciardini, argues that Machiavelli had learned about the “crucial importance of force in politics”[35] in the twenty years since the appearance of French and Spanish troops in Italy. He further argues that although the Discourses dealt more with the establishment of republics, the “dominating idea” in the Discourses and the Prince is the foundational nature of force for any state.[36] Although we do not know much about Chanakya’s background, it is a fair assumption to say that Alexander’s invasion of India and the subsequent defeat of the Indian kings by Alexander due to the constant fighting between the Indian kingdoms themselves underscored in Chanakya’s mind the necessity of a strong and unified state and the centrality of force in politics. Thus, both Chanakya and Machiavelli came to the same conclusion and were formed by similar experiences. What is striking is the universal applicability ascribed to their laws. Gilbert writes on Machiavelli, “[the] Prince and the Discourses were intended to reveal the laws which govern the world of politics,”[37] while LN Rangarajan regards Chanakya “as a great preceptor of statecraft, whose teachings have a universal validity.”[38]

Since both of our subjects believe in the primacy of force, it is not surprising that they devote much effort to explaining what force is and how it should be used. Machiavelli, for example, having learned from the incessant wars between the Italian states themselves and also between France and Spain, is particularly concerned that the state should have its own arms. Chanakya cynically declares, “When one has an army, one’s ally remains friendly, or even the enemy becomes friendly.”[39] Since laws are upheld by force, it is apparent that the prince should be armed. Machiavelli clearly indicates that “there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws.”[40] As Mansfield points out, Machiavelli abjectly repudiates the Christian notion that the meek shall inherit the earth.[41] A key point Machiavelli wishes to make is that the prince not rely on mercenaries or auxiliaries. He says,

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you…no principality is secure without having its own forces.[42]

Again, in the Discourses, he stresses, “[s]uch princes and republics of modern times as have no national troops for defence or attack ought well to be ashamed of it,”[43] and in The Art of War, he repeats again, “I say to you that no army is of more use than your own.”[44] Machiavelli’s adamance on this issue stems from his conviction that auxiliary troops are not under the prince’s control but under the control of he who sends the troops, and mercenaries, as stated above, cannot be trusted. In his time, Italian city states rarely had standing armies—even larger European states struggled to afford one—and most cities relied almost exclusively on mercenaries. The French invasion of Italy revealed the weakness of this policy, and Machiavelli’s repeated warning is similar to that of a child having burnt his fingers.

The Arthashastra does not prohibit the use of mercenaries, probably because they augment an already vast force the king possesses. Chanakya categorises the army in several groups, each group or combination of groups best suited for certain kinds of missions. Chanakya’s army consists of maula (the standing army), bhrita (the territorial army), sreni (the militia), mitra (the ally’s army), amitra (alien forces), and atavi (tribal forces). Of these six types—sreni obviously refers to mercenaries—the first three were drawn from the citizens of the country.[45] Chanakya also prefers that any force be composed of elements earlier in the list than later. The last two, amitra and atavi, were deemed untrustworthy and unreliable, plunder being their only goal, and hence to be used only as a last resort or as disposable troops.[46]

Like Chanakya, Machiavelli also comments on how troops should be drawn. His schema, thankfully, is far simpler. Machiavelli believes that men should generally be drawn from the populace through a draft. “Since it is necessary…first to find men, you must come to the Deletto of them.”[47] For this, he advises that the draft be drawn from “the peasants, who are accustomed to working the land, are more useful than anyone else.”[48] Chanakya’s advice is identical. “A kshatriya army, trained in the art of weapons, is better, or a vaisya or a shudra army, when possessed of great [numbers],”[49] Chanakya opines.[50] Upon the creation of armies and matters of military strategy, Chanakya and Machiavelli expound in much detail. Machiavelli’s Art of War deals exclusively with military matters, the prince’s first duty. Chanakya also focuses in great detail upon strategy, formations, discipline, potential problems, payment, equipment, training, battalions and divisions, and other organisational factors in Books Two, Eight, and Nine of the Arthashastra.

Diplomacy

It is important to understand Chanakya’s and Machiavelli’s worldview, their weltanschauung, before looking at their aphorisms on diplomacy. Machiavelli is clear even in his Discourses, where he seems more interested in the ideal form of government than the realpolitik of the Prince, that “it is impossible for a republic to remain long in the quiet enjoyment of her freedom within her limited confines; for even if she does not molest others, others will molest her, and from being thus molested will spring the desire and necessity of conquests.”[51] Chanakya’s view of the world extends not only to the kingdom’s immediate neighbours but beyond that to encompass the whole world.[52] Of course, Mauryan dynasty maps were not as sophisticated as to show the entire planet, but in his system of twelve concentric mandalas or circles, Chanakya divides the world into enemies, allies, allies of enemies, allies of allies, and so on.[53] In its entirety, Chanakya’s matrix consists of seventy-two elements (!) that could be reduced only upon conquest.[54]

Ambassadors were not permanent in Chanakya’s or Machiavelli’s time. In both cases, envoys served a secondary function of intelligence gathering. As Sir Henry Wotton punned succinctly, “an ambassador [was] an honest man who [was] sent to lie abroad.”[55] Especially with the strengthening of international law, when protection was granted to messengers, ambassadors were useful assets in an enemy’s court. Chanakya, true to his style, explains in detail the qualifications of an envoy—there are multiple kinds with varying degrees of power—and their duties, even how they should conduct themselves when in the enemy’s court. These thoughts are grouped along with his teachings on the training of spies, counsellors, and assassins, revealing the purpose of embassy in the Arthashastran mind. Usually, the envoy was not paid and allowed only a travelling allowance, just as in medieval Europe. However, envoys were mostly drawn from the king’s courtiers and were therefore paid in other ways.[56]

Oddly missing is a thorough discussion on the ars arengandi in Machiavelli’s writings, particularly since he himself played ambassador on several occasions. His writings indicate through historical examples, particularly in the Prince, the influence of emissaries on politics in communicating with other states. Despite lacking the exhaustive training his Venetian counterparts received, Machiavelli’s experience is unquestionably proven in a 1522 memo to Raffaello Girolami, an inexperienced colleague. In what by now should not be surprising, Machiavelli’s advice to Girolami closely resembles Chanakya’s thoughts. Both our theorists emphasise the “analysis of the political situation and the personality of the audience.”[57] Machiavelli states, “successful diplomacy begins with a thorough analysis of the nature of the sovereign to whom the envoy is sent.”[58] The envoys should strive to learn the “state and essence” of the enemy’s government.[59] Chanakya writes,

[An envoy] should observe terrains suitable for stationing an army, for fighting, for reserves and for retreat, for his own state and for the enemy…he should find out the size of forts and the country as well as strong points…defences and weak points…he should notice graciousness in speech, expression and eyes of the enemy, esteem of the envoy’s words, inquiries about his wishes, keen interest in talk about the qualities of the envoy’s master.[60]

The question, of course, is why was something so essential to the functioning of a state not included in the three principal texts he wrote on statecraft? William Wiethoff argues that this is because Machiavelli’s ideas on diplomatic functionaries were conventional for the time. Much of what Machiavelli explained to Girolami had been standard practice in medieval Italy. Just as Chanakya assumes that no king would hurt a brahmin emissary because it was understood in Indian society that brahmins were not to be harmed, Machiavelli sees no point in reiterating the accepted wisdom of his time.

Despite the emphasis on negotiation, neither Chanakya nor Machiavelli believed that treaties were binding.[61] In fact, both thinkers considered some treaties as made to be broken, to lull the enemy into a false sense of security. Politics is for both men as much about breaking promises as it is making them. The king who wants to outmanoeuvre a short-sighted enemy should enter into an alliance with him to create a false sense of confidence, and then discovering the weak points of the enemy, strike him.[62] Machiavelli also agreed that it seldom happened that anyone could “rise from low condition to high rank without employing either force or fraud,” and it was less censurable if the fraud were concealed.[63] Chanakya and Machiavelli both spend considerable time delineating the nature of such conspiracies and frauds and how the prince or king should avoid them. The Arthashastra also mentions various methods—wine, women, wealth, gambling, assassination—a king could use to destabilise his enemy.[64] According to C. Formichi, both Machiavelli and Chanakya agreed that 1) Nations are always hostile and need to be eliminated with whatever methods available, 2) Reasons of State must prevail over all other sentiments, and 3) There are no limits to absolute sovereignty.[65]

Fiscal Policy

There is one aspect of the state that Chanakya and Machiavelli disagree on: economics. For Chanakya, economics was central to the well-being of the state. The basis of state power was financial power.[66] Wars were fought and policies were formulated on the basis of gain, and usually, money was a good measure of success. The Mauryan state had an extensive tax code to support its ventures. The Arthashastran state regulated all aspects of economics but was not a collectivised state. Although the state controlled key industries, legalised and taxed alcohol, prostitution[67] and gambling, and prescribed severe punishments for financial duplicity, the king could not seize land from a farmer as long as the farmer paid his taxes. Chanakya even prohibited the state from making deals that hurt individual merchants and many areas of business were off-limits to the state.

Machiavelli’s thoughts are radically different. He emphatically states, “there cannot, therefore, be a more erroneous opinion than that money is the sinews of war.”[68] Machiavelli’s argument is that one cannot wage war with gold but needs iron. Without the strong spirit of good soldiers, an excess of gold merely encourages neighbouring states to plunder the prince’s realm.[69] Money is a necessity, Machiavelli argues, but a secondary one that good soldiers could overcome. In the Prince, Machiavelli warns that principalities that are acquired by fortune, by wealth or gift, are the hardest to hold because the prince has not demonstrated his virtu to the people yet. What are we to make of this stark reversal on realpolitik by the arch-realist of the modern era? It seems unlikely that Machiavelli suddenly chose to venerate the human spirit—in fact, Machiavelli’s take on human nature appears quite bleak. From the examples Machiavelli cites in the Discourses to support this view, one gathers that Machiavelli does not abnegate the power of money but merely implores the prince not to rely solely on it. It is obvious that Machiavelli sees the importance of fiscal health for he considers the problems of paying a large standing army. However, Machiavelli still rejects the centrality of pecuniary matters in the functioning of an army let alone a state. The only possible reason I can suggest is that Machiavelli’s prince did not seek global hegemony but merely the security of his realm. Ideally, Machiavelli’s prince used his enemy’s resources to replenish his own needs. The Arthashastran king, however, sought world domination. Perhaps the king did not posses a long-term strategy to do this but constant conflict and realignment of politics plot the king on a course to defeat or world conquest. This required far larger resources of money and strategic materials than Machiavelli’s prince could dream of.[70] It may also be because when Machiavelli wrote his treatises, he had firmly in mind the political situation in Italy at the time, while Chanakya’s labour was unconstrained by any historical context.

Conclusion

The tragic truth behind Chanakya’s and Machiavelli’s thoughts was expressed most concisely by Machiavelli himself: how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin.[71] It is overly simplistic to mark these two theorists as cold-hearted realists and demonise them, for both placed many caveats upon the use of extreme force. Chanakya forbade the king from attacking another just king, for the aggressor could not hope to hold the gains he made against just king.[72] Machiavelli agrees with Chanakya, saying, “one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion.”[73] As regards cruelty and mercy, Machiavelli states, “he is to be reprehended who commits violence for the purpose of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes. The lawgiver should, however, be sufficiently wise and virtuous not to leave this authority which he has assumed either to his heirs or to any one else; for mankind, being more prone to evil than to good…”[74] Thus, Mansfield’s statement about Machiavelli can be extended to describe Chanakya as well: for both these men, “there is just one beginning—necessity.”[75] Even in victory, both recommend generous behaviour towards the vanquished, letting them keep their traditions and treating captives well—both sought stability and order internally as well as externally.[76] Both project a sense of paternalism towards the subjects of their realms, yet both are cognisant of the fact that the security of the realm is sometimes paid for by a high body count, hopefully the enemy’s.

The Arthashastra is separated from the Prince, Discourses, and the Art of War by eighteen centuries and a vastly different culture, and yet their resonance with each other is remarkable. One cannot but help reconsidering structuralist notions of power, leaving for them the Foucauldian knowledge-is-power panopticon. The signs and signifying practices in Chanakya’s and Machiavelli’s world seem to conform into a unitary constructed reality, a reality that differs in all aspects but the nature of power. What does this say of Hannah Arendt’s view that violence indicates the loss of power?[77] Furthermore, what does this leave of Ranajit Guha’s carefully crafted relationship between dominance, hegemony, and power? The strongest argument for a closer analysis of a structuralist notion of power seems to me to be in the cultural differences and the time separating Machiavelli and Chanakya. In a world as dynamic as ours, anything that lasts for so long with so few changes deserves another look. There is no doubt, however, that both men have acquired a sinister reputation over the years. Indians prefer to project the image of their messenger of peace, Mohandas Gandhi, and ignore the full implications of the Arthashastra. Machiavelli, needless to say, caused much debate among Europeans over his legacy—the authoritarian Machiavelli of the Prince, or the republican Machiavelli of the Discourses? The pagan Machiavelli, or the Christian Machiavelli?[78] This is obviously an absurd reduction. As Lord Acton said of Machiavelli, “a sublime purpose justifies him, and he has been wronged by dupes and fanatics, by irresponsible dreamers and interested hypocrites.”[79] To conclude, it is best to let Machiavelli defend and define both, himself and Chanakya: my profession is to govern my subjects, and defend them, and in order to defend them, I must love peace but know how to make war.[80]

---

[1] There are debates regarding the exact date the Arthashastra was written. See RP Kangle, The Kautilya Arthashastra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988), Volume 3, 59 – 116. Indologists date the text from as early as the fourth century before the Common Era to the third after. However, the dating of this text shall have no serious repercussions on our study of its dictums.

[2] Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guiccardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), 154.

[3] Harvey Mansfield, Machiavelli’s Virtue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 238.

[4] Law of the fishes (matsyanyaya) — big fish eat little fish. The origin of authority and eventually the state is seen as rising from a Hobbesian anarchy. And similar to Hobbes’ thesis, the alternative to the state is anarchy. However, there does not seem to be any social contract as Hobbes or Jean-Jacques Rousseau would suggest in their works.

[5] Arthashastra 1.13.5-7. See RP Kangle, Volume 2, 28.

[6] “Land in itself had little value in Arthashastran India as there was plenty of virgin land to be had for free. The Arthashastra does not even mention land in its list of inheritable property. Land became valuable only when made productive by human labour.” See Abraham Eraly, The Gem in the Lotus: The Seeding of Indian Civilisation (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000), 380.

[7] Arthashastra 6.1.1. See Kangle Volume 2, 314.

[8] Arthashastra 1.7.9.

[9] Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, Chapter XI. Online. Available from http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=775, accessed February 12, 2012.

[10] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter XXV.

[11] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter XXXIV.

[12] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter II.

[13] Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV. Online. Available from http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1234, accessed February 12, 2012.

[14] Arthashastra 3.1.41. See Kangle, Volume 2, 195.

[15] Kangle, Volume 3, 117 – 118.

[16] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter III.

[17] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter VI.

[18] Miguel Vatter, Between Event and Form: Machiavelli’s Theory of Political Freedom (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), 22.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Kangle, Volume 3, 131.

[21] Arthashastra 1.17.51. See Kangle, Volume 2, 48.

[22] Radhagovindha Basak, Some Aspects of Kautilya’s Political Thinking (Burdwan: Burdwan University Press, 1967), 3.

[23] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War, Book 1. Online. Available from http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1234, accessed February 12, 2012

[24] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 18.

[25] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book II, Chapter VI.

[26] Arthashastra 7.2.1. See Kangle, Volume 2, 325.

[27] Arthashastra 6.2.33. See Kangle, Volume 2, 319.

[28] Roger Boesche, The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and his Arthashastra (Oxford:Lexington Books, 2002), 109.

[29] Arthashastra 7.1.6. See Kangle, Volume 2, 321.

[30] Bharati Mukherjee, Kautilya’s Concept of Diplomacy: A New Interpretation (Calcutta: Minerva Associates, 1976), 33-34.

[31] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVIII.

[32] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book II, Chapter XXI.

[33] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book III, Chapter XL.

[34] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book III, Chapter XLI.

[35] Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini, 154.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 170.

[38] LN Rangarajan, The Arthashastra (Delhi: Penguin Books, 1992), 31.

[39] Arthashastra 8.1.56. See Kangle, Volume 2, 389.

[40] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XII.

[41]Mansfield, 187.

[42] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XII.

[43] Machiavelli, Discourses, Chapter XXI. See also, Chapter XLIII, where Machiavelli again mentions the “uselessness of mercenary troops, who have nothing to make them fight but the small stipend they receive, which is not and cannot be sufficient to make them loyal, or so devoted as to be willing to die for you.”

[44] Machiavelli, The Art of War, Book I.

[45] Rangarajan, 684.

[46] The standing army depended upon the king for its existence and was under constant training. This was therefore the best army in terms of equipment, training, and loyalty. Some campaigns the king may wish to lead may need a larger army. The territorial army was next in preference because of its close proximity to the king—it was usually drawn from the capital and the surrounding areas. It was easily mobilised and more obedient. Sreni, the militia, were next because they were drawn from common citizens of the entire realm. These troops were reliable because in the success of the king lay their success. Their expectations for reward and other gains made them useful. Chanakya preferred friendly forces next. They were understood to have similar interests as that of the king, and they were hopefully as well-trained as the king’s own army. Amitra and Atavi were forces Machiavelli would probably describe as auxiliaries—they were not under the direct control of the king. However, they provided bodies if and when needed. Amitra were alien forces whose interests coincided with those of the king’s for a limited period. Atavi were jungle forces—in Chanakya’s time, there were certain jungle tribes that a king allowed to exist in his kingdom that were not part of his jurisdiction. They had no rights as citizens, but were extended the same protection as any citizen. In return, they would provide troops if needed. See Rangarajan, 684-685.

[47] Machiavelli, The Art of War, Book I.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Arthashastra 9.2.21. See Kangle, Volume 2, 412.

[50] In Hindu society, people were divided into four broad groups. The brahmins, the highest group, were priests, scholars, and counselors in the royal court. Kshatriyas were nobility, and were considered the warrior caste. It fell to them to rule and to defend society. The next caste, the vaishyas, were merchants, financiers, and artisans. The lowest caste, the shudras, worked in service industries and were artisans. Outside the caste system were the non-Aryans, mlecchas. Chanakya does not consider them in his work.

[51] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book 2, Chapter XIX.

[52] RP Kangle translates the opening line of the Arthashastra as, “This single treatise on the Science of Politics has been prepared mostly by bringing together the teaching of as many treatises on the Science of Politics as have been composed by ancient teachers for the acquisition and protection of the earth.” (emphasis mine). See Arthashastra 1.1.1. Kangle, Volume 2, 1.

[53] Rangarajan, 557.

[54] Arthashastra 6.2.13-28. See Kangle, Volume 2, 318-319.

[55] Harold Nicholson, Diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958)

[56] Kangle, Volume 3, 208.

[57] William Wiethoff, “A Machiavellian Paradigm for Diplomatic Communication,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 43, No. 4, (November 1981): 1093.

[58] Memoriale a Raffaello Girolami quando al 23 d’Ottobre parti per Spagna all’Imperatore, in Opere, ed. Alessandro Montevecchi (Torino: Unione Tipografico, 1971), 2: 223.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Arthashastra 1.16.8-12. See Kangle, Volume 2, 37. For general rules of diplomatic conduct, see Arthashastra 1.16.8-35 in Kangle, Volume 2, 37-39.

[61] For the Arthashastra on treaties, see Rangarajan, 580-603. Chanakya also states that any contract made with fraudulent intent is invalid. See Rangarajan, 501.

[62] Arthashastra 7.6.13. See Kangle, 339.

[63] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book 2, Chapter III.

[64] Roger Boesche, “Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India,” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan. 2003): 24.

[65] Benoy Kumar Sarkar, “Hindu Politics in Italian,” Indian Historical Quarterly, Volume I (1925), 551-552.

[66] Eraly, 387.

[67] Prostitutes were educated in their craft at the state’s expense (!) and were taxed at a uniform 12.5%.

[68] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book II, Chapter X.

[69] “I maintain, then, contrary to the general opinion, that the sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers; for gold alone will not procure good soldiers, but good soldiers will always procure gold. Had the Romans attempted to make their wars with gold instead of with iron, all the treasure of the world would not have sufficed them, considering the great enterprises they were engaged in, and the difficulties they had to encounter. But by making their wars with iron, they never suffered for the want of gold; for it was brought to them, even into their camp.” See Ibid.

[70] In modern nuclear parlance, this is the difference between Chanakya’s MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) and Machiavelli’s MUD (Mutually Unacceptable Damage). The theory is that it is not necessary to have the power to obliterate the planet as the US and USSR did during the Cold War. French, Israeli, British, and now Indian nuclear programs are far more modest—they possess enough nuclear weapons to make any potential aggressor think twice before attacking. Similarly, Chanakya’s king had a global vision, while Machiavelli’s prince was content to rule a strong but bounded power.

[71] Machiavelli, Prince, Chapter 15.

[72] Arthashastra 7.5.16-18. See Kangle 335.

[73] Machiavelli, Prince, Chapter 8.

[74] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter IX.

[75]Mansfield, 55.

[76] George Modelski, “Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sept. 1964), 558.

[77] Hannah Arendt, On Violence (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1970), 44-46.

[78] See Sebastian de Grazia’s Machiavelli in Hell (New York: Vintage Books, 1994).

[79] Introduction to LA Burd’s edition of The Prince (Oxford, 1891), xxxiv.

[80] Machiavelli, Art of War, Book I.

Jaideep A. Prabhu is a specialist in foreign and nuclear policy; he also pokes his nose in energy and defence related matters.