Four Level View Of Systems By Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli

Abstract 

This paper proposes viewing all systems in four levels – worldview, doctrinal, institutional/architectural and experienced/lived reality. 

We draw upon the axiomatic sources of Indian knowledge to bring this perspective, and explain how the design of systems in India has been enlightened by such perspective. 

Such a perspective applies to all systems manmade and cosmos, as per Indian knowledge. By corollary, it is visible in the design of collective institutions such as state, social institutions, religious institutions etc. 

We then draw a contrast with the modern institutions and the texts underlying them, and how these four levels are implicit or explicit. 

We argue that taking cognizance of such a perspective results in a systematic design of texts underlying institutions, and the architecture of texts would be very different from the modern texts that lack such a perspective. 

Its primary implications are in 

a. the way futuristic knowledge generation and theorizing would happen, and how various fuzzy and 

complex activities involving institution design for large societies can be made systematic. 

b. the way these subjects can be brought into a more rigorous formal epistemic structure. 

Introduction to the Concept 

The Puruṣa Sūkta of Rig Veda is one of the best expositions of cosmic views, and it is said there - 

“pādosya viṣvā bhūtāni tripādasya amRtaṃ divi” 

Meaning, all the visible world is one fourth of the four-fold divine, the other three remain immortal. They are visible only to the trained eye. 

In many ways, this applies to systems manmade and cosmic, in a simple cause-effect sense. The visible is but an effect, whose cause is visible only to the trained eye. This is a fact that is universally verifiable. It can be the workings of a scientific theory whose results are visible to the common man, it can be the efficiency of a machine whose workings are unknown to the user, it can be the social outcomes of a theory of state, it can also be the visible universe itself whose evolution and workings are unknown to a good part. What appears magic to the untrained eye, is yet something quite meaningful for the trained eye and only more meaningful for the trained hand that is working this “magic” to bear fruit to the ones experiencing the fruits. 

Puruṣa of this Sūkta is the primal cosmic being, the personified representation of the cosmos. He is the performer of the grand cosmic sacrifice, and also the whole of the sacrifice itself. 

Contrary to the view that Upanishad contains the “summary” of Vedic knowledge, it can also be argued that Upanishads contain elaborate commentary of what is summarily mentioned in the Samhita portions.

 

“Ekam Sat” (Rik 1.164.46) is one such brief statement of Samhita which has elaborate descriptions in the Upanishad. Another is the above Rik that mentions fourfold cosmic being. Its nature is found in the Mānḍūkya Upanishad, where the three immortal layers are enunciated along with the fourth and manifest. 

Four Levels and Four Parts 

The four parts of Puruṣa can be seen as correlating to the four parts of divine/cosmic being enunciated in Mānḍūkya Upanishad. The being that consumes gross, subtle, causal objects in three levels and remains immutable in fourth (eternal/composite). 

Mānḍūkya Upanishad (verse 2) says 

“sarvaṃ hyetad brahma, ayamātmā brahma, sothamātmā catuṣpāt” 

Meaning, all that is existent, is Brahman. The self is Brahman too (thus micro is a reflection of macro).

 

And it is four-fold. The subsequent verses detail that the first part is Vaisvanara the enjoyer of gross objects, second is Taijasa the enjoyer of subtle objects, third is PrAjna the enjoyer of causal objects and fourth is the composite/eternal/absolute. 

These four correspond to the manifest outcome (gross, lived experience), the how/mechanism/workings (subtle), the doctrinal/causal what and the fourth of macro perspective/eternal/existential reality. 

The gross is the most manifest level that is experienced, seen with “naked eye”, in case of collective phenomena the “ground reality”. From this level of experience, the universe appears as it is to the naked eye, or “viṣvā bhūtāni”of Puruṣa Sūkta. The universal being at this level of experience is the vaiśvānara of Mānḍūkya. Thus, this is the ultimate outcome/effect whose cause lies in the others. 

The subtle is the level of mechanism of how things are done and how they work. In the workings of any system, this is the layer of architecture/institutional structure. This is the cause of the manifest fourth layer, and it is caused by the workings of other two layers. In case of the cosmos, the laws of nature, the intelligence that causes the dynamics of cosmic action, in other words the mechanisms of setting cosmic order constitute this layer. Institutions work their magic by channeling the collective energies towards specific outcomes, favoring certain outcomes over others. These outcomes appear simply as results of actions of the acting entities/members, yet when one refers to the “system” it is this structure that one refers to implicitly. 

The causal is the level of principle and purpose. In case of cosmos, the primal causal principle or the “purpose towards which the whole game is being played”, is the source of such doctrine. In any system, this corresponds to the doctrine underlying institution design. The primary principles which are meant to be served by the institutional structure, remain the purpose for which it is designed. Thus the causal/doctrine is the cause whose effect is the subtle/architecture. 

The fourth is the level of existential reality. In cosmic sense this is the absolute. In any system, this is the worldview, an ontological statement of the nature of the essential reality. “It is because the essential reality of man is such, that he craves such things, thus to serve his collective purpose such an institution would be an ideal vehicle”- thus proceeds the thought process of an ideal system design. 

The table below summarizes the four level view. 

State, Constitution 

The four level view is best demonstrated with the example of constitution and statecraft. 

The laws, policies, executive actions instruments etc are in fact the manifest fourth leg of statecraft, outcomes of the exercise. What underlies these, is an institutional structure, an architecture of state that makes the various entities in the system operate in a certain way, with specific objectives and incentives motivating those actions. 

This is the “invisible” third part of the system, which is not really something that is paid attention to by the user of the system or even a diligent participant in the functioning of the system, and is known only to a discerning participant in the design of the system. 

This institutional structure determines which aspect of the system weighs more powerful in which aspect, which kind of policies can be enacted by it, what its strengths are and what its limitations are. In this sense, this is the cause whose effect is the manifest and experienced outcome of actual functioning of the system. In fact a good system is one where the institutional structure itself does not become overtly visible or felt, but the country functions because of it. The structure will be felt when its baggage or inefficiency shows, otherwise society is oblivious to it for the most part. 

Underlying the institutional architecture is a doctrine, which acts as a set of ideals that the state aspires to realize. The institutional structure, policies, incentives all are directed towards realizing the ideals derived from the doctrine. For instance, equality and justice, welfare of society, promoting fraternity are all ideals that constitute part of the state doctrine. 

The doctrine thus, is the second part of the system, the cause whose effect is an institutional structure. 

Underlying doctrine is a worldview, from which a doctrine derives. The nature of man and world, purpose and goals of human life, means to their fulfillment, nature of collectivities etc constitute worldview. The state doctrine and goals are determined based on worldview. For instance, if goal of human life is fulfillment of potential and highest happiness, enabling humans towards that happiness becomes the goal 

of state, a state doctrine. On the other hand if fulfillment of needs is defined as the enabler of happiness, then goal of state would be to help fulfill human needs – and the state becomes a welfare state. Thus worldview is the cause whose effect is the state doctrine. In cases where worldview is stated and established, there is a way to systematically derive the doctrine and change it with time, with respect to 

a worldview. In cases where it is unstated, changing a doctrine would mean a full reset of system since there is no basis remaining for evolutionary change. 

In the modern constitutions there is no clear layering of content into these. Worldview is mostly assumed and unstated. Doctrine is where modern constitutions begin. Whether it is “that all are created equal” of US constitution or the aspiration of equality fraternity etc in Indian constitution, the ideals are stated axiomatically. 

This in itself may not concern civilizations that have seen revolutions to bring about change in ideals. But revolution itself is a civilian trauma, and the need for it is a fundamental failure of system in Indian view. 

A society that is capable of evolving systems organically, by changing what is temporary and basing it on a substratum of unchanging principles of nature, would not treat ideals axiomatically but as temporal. 

Ideals of state have changed over time with human evolution. 

So a more scientific approach to this is to make an explicit statement of worldview, part of it being axiomatic (and derived systematically from axiomatic sources to ensure probity in the statement of worldview) and part of it derived from it and established as a translator for establishing doctrine. 

From this, doctrine derives systematically, in a way it suits temporal requirements. Doctrine thus becomes refutable instead of axiomatic. State architecture or institutional structure derives from doctrine and that remains prescriptive, similar to modern constitutions. However, there needs to be refutability in it – to show how an institutional structure realizes the doctrine and how change will be prompted by non- 

realization. 

Thus we have ontological, normative, prescriptive content in the text of statecraft, and not limited to prescriptive content. It is not necessary that all the types of content are in the same document either. But the classification needs to be in a way that consistency and completeness are not violated. Worldview is visible, at the level of lived reality, through the doctrine and institutions. For instance if man is an 

economic being in a worldview, the entire system is designed in an economy-centric way. If purpose of life is highest happiness in a worldview, the entire system is designed to enable what man seeks without judging or measuring him in economic terms. 

In traditional Indian scheme, the worldview and part of doctrine are found in dharma śāstra (Manu Yājnavalkya Parāśara Devala etc). Institution design is only in principle dealt in dharma śāstra. Part of doctrine and institutional structure, instruments of state etc are visible extensively in artha śāstra (Kautilya’s Artha śāstra, Nīti Sūtras, Sukra Nīti Sāra etc). It can be seen by studying them together, that 

artha śāstra is giving instruments to fulfill the goals laid down in the dharma śāstra. After all, “ dharmasya mūlaṃ arthaḥ” or artha is the means to fulfill dharma. 

Such an architecture brings permanence to a grand design, where structures remain temporal and new ones continuously emerge to replace older ones, without needing revolutions for such replacement. That change happens is not a cliché but has to be visible in the way a system is designed. Taking explicit cognizance of this four level view helps us design systems where change is organically embraced at all 

levels. To specify a worldview means that if that layer changes, all the other layers will change to adapt to it. Change in doctrine means there is no change in worldview, and the two lower layers will change. If doctrine remains the same and institutional structure is unable to keep up to realize it, it means there needs to be a more current design and it will mean change at two levels by keeping two unchanged. The 

fourth or lived experience of it always changes, and is the ultimate test for the success of the system. 

Applicability 

It may appear that the Puruṣa Sūkta mantra is indicating the four parts of divine and invisible, and that in case of state all four are manmade. However it needs to be understood that these are four levels of any system – the cosmos too. Divine or otherwise, the “institutional structure” of the universe is explained in 

the śRti. This may or may not be subscribed to in a particular worldview, but in the Astika scheme this remains the cause whose effect is lived reality and experience of beings. Principle of action, yajna, transcendence, guna, are all constructs that govern the experiences/lived reality. 

What becomes doctrine is the dynamics of creation of world, the intelligence principle behind it. 

Viṣṇu is said to have created three worlds and established “dharma” or the order of functioning. This constitutes doctrine. 

Worldview as known to humans is darsana. As known to divine, is only known to human in little bits. 

It is said “yathā pinḍe tathā brahmāṇḍe”, what is applicable at macro is also applicable to micro. This is also the basic principle that yoga and spiritual philosophies base themselves on. It is not limited to seeing and realizing the entire universe manifested in individual being as a microcosm, it also very much applies 

to how human collectivities operate by the same principles of nature that are found in the seeds of creation. The collective being, social at one level is cosmic at another. This is also why the divine who expounds Herself in VāgāmbhRṇī sūkta, revealing Herself as manifest in all the devatas like Indra and Vasu-s, also calls Herself the social collective whole - Rāśṭrī. 

Table below summarizes the four level view of state and its root texts

Society 

In India, society has a matrix of institutions (discussed in the paper Scope of Smriti and Nature of Dharmic State) that are stratified and non-hierarchical, and orthogonal to the hierarchical institutions of state. 

They are designed very much by these four levels. In the world view layer come the permanent nature of world and man, macranthropy (cosmos as a personified divine), varna dharmas (which are common to all forms and beings not just humans) etc. They are codified in the axiomatic sources and sanātana/eternal layers of dharma śāstras. 

At the doctrine level there are dharma’s operating layers including temporal/yuga dharma, primary principles of life, basic tenets of sampradāyas. Doctrine derived from worldview of triguna and Ananda as purpose of life, so that institutional structure is designed to be a vehicle for its fulfillment. 

At the architectural level the various institutions like deśa, jāti, vṛtti, ecosystem of sampradāyas are visible, which operated to provide cohesion and acted as vehicles for fulfillment of human purposes and realized the doctrines. 

The lived reality is the outcome of these, which reflected in a high civilization, prosperity, perfection, lofty human conduct, integration motifs working across Bharata. While the destruction of these institutions over centuries under external attacks was a matter of time, it is not the vitality of institutions in the long term but the relevance of their principles for the future that matters, so that newer institutional structures 

can be designed. 

Below is the table summarizing the four levels in context of institutions of social collective. 

Religion 

Religion and spiritual philosophy is a sphere where the four level view shows marked difference, and how evolution is enabled or preempted through institutional structure, as a result of the worldview adopted. 

The table below summarizes how the manifestation happened from a worldview to lived reality in dharmic and abrahamist spheres. A lot of this is known reality and hardly needs argument, so it is stated in the most brief way possible primarily to indicate the manifestation level and causation through the levels rather than to indicate the good/bad. There is definitely a bias visible in the presentation, in favor of better articulated knowledge over a faith system, in favor of one that has a stratification between ontological, normative and prescriptive forms of texts. 

Conclusion 

To conclude, taking cognizance of this enables design of lasting institutions that have the capability to evolve and be replaced organically in a non-violent and inexpensive way. The substratum of a permanent worldview which can be rearticulated in an effective way to suit times, enables revision of doctrines and revision of doctrines means scope for rearchitecture without needing violent and costly revolutions or 

resets of civilization. The modern world is now at a stage where it can start contemplating on such possibilities, given the recent tryst with enlightenment ideals and having achieved certain level of civilizational maturity. This possibility would not have been a serious matter to think of in the feudal or slave age, given the maturity levels of institution design and their alignment with higher human purposes. 

Today it is a possibility, to evolve such a four-level knowledge structure, and align design of future collective institutions based on those. If the eternal wisdom of India is to prevail in this matter, this possibility would become a reality. 

Texts and References 

1. Puruṣa sūkta, Rigveda 

2. Viṣṇu sūkta, Rigveda 

3. Mānḍūkya Upanishad 

4. VāgāmbhRṇī sūkta, Rigveda 

5. (Book) Hindu view of Christianity and Islam by Ram Swarup 1992 

6. (Paper) Scope of Smriti and Nature of Dharmic State, Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli 2017 

7. Dharma śāstra-s (Manu, Yājnavalkya), Dharma Sūtras (Apastamba, Baudhāyana) 

8. Artha śāstra-s – Kautilīya Artha śāstra, Nīti Sūtras, Sukra Nīti Sāra

The Pragmatism and Compassion of the Kautilyan Taxation System - Sandeep Balakrishna

 Taxation

Taxation is another major area where we see Chanakya’s invisible hand throughout the Hindu civilizational history. The second Adhikarana (Chapter) of the Arthasastra, has a rather compassionate and grounded exposition of the Kautilyan taxation system. In verses six through eight, Chanakya mentions how the king should show Anugraha (favour) to farmers by supplying them seed, cattle, and money for farming, and that they should return it in instalments after reaping harvest. The king should also give them tax breaks in such a way that it “swells the treasury eventually.”

We see an exact replica of this policy in the Vijayanagara Empire. In 1379, Harihara II passed the following order: “by this order, the State has exempted from tax this land which has been brought under cultivation. Further, by making provision for irrigation and by digging canals, [this] village has made many improvements. Rice fields and gardens have been irrigated. In order to continue these improvements, the Emperor gave the people lands which are irrigated by this water tax-free for nine years so that the revenue amounts to 20,000 Pagodas.”

The consequence was, as Kautilya had anticipated so long ago, that the royal treasury “swelled.” Agricultural production touched an all-time high and the tax incentive enabled farmers to produce more.

This compassionate side of the Kautilyan taxation system was also informed with his innate understanding of a simple, verifiable truth: preserving culture preserved and improved the economy. However, this cultural impetus was born from the fact that Kautilya was himself a brilliant exponent of Sanatana Dharma. In the realm of taxation, this translated into the exemption of certain Shulkas (tolls):

1. Items taken by a new bride from her parents’ house to her husband’s house.

2. Items carried by anyone for facilitating the delivery of a woman.

3. Items taken for Puja, Yatra, Yagna, Vrata, etc

4. Items taken for ceremonies like Chaula (tonsuring), Namakarana (naming ceremony), Upanayana (Sacred Thread ceremony), Godana (donating cows), etc.

We see the practical application of this exemption-rule throughout the history of Hindu Empires.

Under the Cholas, an entire village would be exempt from tolls if its members went travelled for attending an out-of-town marriage, Yatra, festival etc.

Next, we have a great story where an Antyaja (people known today as Dalits) was returning to his village from a pilgrimage. He was harassed by the toll-keeper of the Araga region (Malnad). The harasser did not relent even after repeated pleading and the poor Antyaja had to cough up money. Eventually, he made an official complaint. In no time, the local chieftain severely punished the toll-keeper by stripping him of his job and levying a huge penalty.

Next, Kautilya also systematized the practice of making grants of entire villages, lands, etc., in some special cases and exempting them from tax. We see his legacy in this area throughout the history of most Hindu Empires. We have definitive inscriptions and grants right from the Gupta period up to the Marathas, and the Wodeyars, which give us detailed records of this practice. In the Wodeyar rule, this was variously known as Parihara, Maanya, Inaam, etc. However, the term Parihara, which was in vogue for several centuries, was used in the sense of compensation, exemption, grant, etc.

The other area of taxation that can be traced back to Kautilya is what is today known as origin of income. In Kautilya’s period and later as well, this meant identifying the place of origin of an item to be taxed. For example, it would be ridiculous to levy wool tax in a desert region. In fact, just by looking at the list of items he taxes by identifying their geographical origin, we are spellbound by his minute knowledge of Bharatavarsha’s geography and production of commercial goods. Thus, it is unsurprising that the Arthasastra became a pan-Indian work and has exerted such an enormous influence in our history.

Military

Now we can briefly trace Kautilya’s lasting influence on the most important organ of any nation: military strength. In Kautilya’s time, military strength was variously known as bala or danda. He divides troops into six major categories:

1. Maula: hereditary warriors, i.e., people with a lineage of military service.

2. Bhrta or Bhrtaka: hired troops

3. Shreni: troops maintained by guilds and business corporations.

4. Mitra: troops of allies

5. Amitra: troops formerly belonging to the enemy

6. Atavika: hunter-warriors

We see this exact division in the very first sloka of a Sixth Century grant given by Dhruvasena I of the Maitraka dynasty of Valabhi (ruling from the Saurashtra region). The verse says how this mighty king acquired his kingdom with the help of Maula-Bhrata-Mitra-Shreni.

From Valabhi, we can travel to Karnataka. Here, we see the Chalukya emperor Someshwara III writing in detail about the division of the military in his encyclopedic classic, Manasollasa. We notice that he is directly inspired by Chanakya when he says that other divisions of troops are always preferable to Atavikas and Amitras who cannot be fully trusted.

Thus, the more we seek, the deeper we dig, the more examples we find of Kautilya’s eternal imprint on Bharatavarsha’s fortunes and destiny.

In passing, we can also look at another important Kautilyan prescription in Chapter Seven of the Arthasastra:

The acquisition of land is better than that of gold and friend, and the acquisition of gold is better than the acquisition of a friend.

On the surface, this sounds heartless but politics and statecraft is not for the faint-hearted. We must remember the fact that Chanakya’s target audience is the King, and not the proverbial common citizen. But even if we set aside this target audience for a while and examine another historical truth, the lasting significance of this dictum becomes clear: such policies were what precisely kept the Maurya Empire flourishing for nearly 250 years. And these policies are exactly what preserved the Vijayanagara Empire amidst such dangerous and bigoted enemies: the Asuric Bahamani sultans who were the permanent source of danger in the North.

We can examine this pragmatic Kautilyan wisdom using the same Vijayanagara example.

Among all great Hindu Empires, Vijayanagara stands tallest in following this Kautilyan dictum in letter and spirit. From its very founding days, the Vijayanagara monarchs made it their state policy to amass enormous amounts of wealth, which itself was a great source of protection and stability. This wealth allowed them to constantly expand their boundaries, it bought them the loyalties of their vassals, and where dirty tricks were called for, the Vijayanagara kings used dirty tricks.

The stability, peace and prosperity that the Vijayanagara Empire enjoyed for about 250 years, was based on the twin foundations of a large and ferocious military and unrivalled economic might. It did not come by following phony Gandhian appeals to the “innate goodness in the heart of the enemy” and other such pious nonsense. In fact, the last de facto ruler, Aliya Rama Raya tried a version of this Gandhian model to his own peril. He adopted the Bahamani princeling as his son, lavished enormous gifts and honours on him only to be repaid by having his head chopped off.

Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/the-pragmatism-and-compassion-of-the-kautilyan-taxation-system

---------
*Updated : 2026

A Short History of Public Opinion in Indian Public Life - Sandeep Balakrishna

The Buddhist Period

The Buddhist period not only continued the earlier tradition of debates, discussions and decisions in public assemblies, but made its own valuable contributions. It is noteworthy that in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, a philosophical work, Bhagavan Buddha found it necessary to tell his disciple Ananda that, “ so long as the people of the Vajji-Gana hold full and frequent public assemblies, so long they may be expected not to decline but to prosper.” Indeed, Buddha repeatedly stressed on the point that such public assemblies had to compulsorily meet frequently and attendance had to be full. The success of each such public discussion was measured by decision-making and problem-solving: solutions had to be found in a timely manner instead of the current national malaise of indefinitely postponing solutions.

Our ancients were far wiser than we can ever fathom.

The Buddhist Era which was dominated by powerful clans (Gana-s) had a thriving system of collecting public opinion publicly. Every city and town had a common Sanghagara (Town Hall) where people as young as fourteen up to aged people participated in vigorous public debates on various issues. The other vital point that catches our attention is the fact that they had full freedom to discuss the business of the State itself. A brilliant story illustrates this point like no other.

Maharaja Pasenadi of the Aikṣvāka dynasty ruling from Shravasti (Sāvatthī) proposed to marry a princess belonging to the Sākya clan. The proposal by itself is quite routine. But what makes it interesting is the fact that he made it public and asked the permission of his people. Members of the Sākya clan met in their own Sanghahara to discuss the proposal. This episode opens two important insights:

1. Each clan or Gana had its own Assembly Hall apart from the common Sanghaghara.

2. The importance that the general public attached to even the private affairs of their ruler.

The importance of the second point cannot be underemphasised. Why was it necessary for the people to give their approval for the ruler’s marriage? The answer: our political philosophers and Rishis right from the Vedic age understood that running a society and thereby a country was essentially the delicate art of maintaining a fine balance. They grasped the fundamental human impulse that the moment one group gains disproportionate power, the entire structure will collapse sooner than later. Thus, the Gana and the Mahajanapada system (roughly speaking, republics) that characterised the Buddhist Era remained a unified whole as long as this balance was maintained among these clans. This among others is a major factor behind the rule that people were generally discouraged from marrying outside their own Gana. It is also the reason Pasenadi had to seek public approval for his marriage. In hindsight, it appears that it was an extremely wise and highly prudent arrangement. The best example of how things can go horribly wrong is available right before our eyes: the marriage of an Italian lady to the son of a former Prime Minister of India. Did Indira or Rajiv Gandhi seek permission from the Indian people before embarking on such a sensitive decision? The same principle applies in the case of Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy who has all but Christianised his entire administration.

This well-oiled system of the Ganas and Mahajanapadas was also its fatal flaw. Over time, fierce clan loyalties weakened the overall civilizational consciousness, which is the only foundation for territorial and political unity. It was precisely this weakness that alarmed Chanakya, who understood that the Sanatana national unity had to be forged from a different steel. Which brings us to the next epoch: of how public opinion was collected in the Kautilyan State.

Public Opinion in the Mauryan Era

Although the full text of the Arthashastra was unearthed only in the beginning of the twentieth century, its imprint remained inextricable throughout Hindu political history. It is not an accident that the text itself disappeared by the twelfth century CE, roughly coinciding with the rise of the Muslim Sultanate in north and north-western India. Indeed, by the 17th century, the widespread opinion among Hindu litterateurs was that the Arthashastra was a “wicked and cruel work.” This is a reflection of the weakness of a psyche that discards Chanakya.

However, whether later kings realised or not, they essentially ruled their Empires according to Chanakyan diktats. In their administrative structures, military Mandalas, spy networks, and taxation, Kautilya was like air: all-encompassing, inescapable, inevitable.

If Kautilya set up an iron-clad administration and a ruthless political machinery, the philosopher in him had recognised the fundamental truth that the only force that could sustain all this was the goodwill of the people. And this goodwill was expressed through public opinion. Equally, when this goodwill turned to wrath, the people wouldn’t hesitate to kill the king—Kautilya mentions several kings who were killed in this fashion.

Thus, rather than await and sense the direction of public opinion, Kautilya proactively recommends the setting up of what can be called the Department of News Writers. In practice, this system generally took the form of issuing royal writs ( sasanas) under the seal of the king. The officer in-charge of these writs was called Lekha (literally, writer). Writs were classified typically as general purpose, royal commands, gifts, donations, or remission of taxes. There were specialised writs related to commerce and business/merchant guilds.

The qualifications of the Lekha were exacting. Here is a partial list. The Lekha had to

· Possess neat handwriting

· Be skilled in grammar, composition, and reading

· Be in constant touch with day-to-day events throughout the kingdom

· Keep a close watch on the events happening in other states, especially those with whom his state had an alliance

The other high office dealing with public opinion was the Espionage Bureau, which directly reported to the King. The Espionage Bureau recruited and sent spies in various disguises throughout the kingdom to collect news. No information was deemed trivial. News writers were stationed at provincial headquarters and they in turn, sent their reports to the Espionage Bureau at the Capital. It was a three-tiered system housed by the Espionage Bureau at the top, the provincial news writers, and wandering spies. Information was encrypted using cipher-writing (gudalekhya) and transmitted through carrier-pigeons. But the most remarkable feature of this system was the fact that spies and news writers were unknown to one another, and the Espionage Bureau collected information from other sources as well. Action was taken only if all these versions agreed with one another. News and information was collected from various sources: gathering at public assembly halls, parks, rest houses, festivals, fairs, and temples.

Public Opinion in Later Eras

Chanakya’s system indeed became a great blueprint that later kings followed. For example, the rich details of the Chola and Pandyan administrative system tell us of the Manrams (literally, “halls,” or public assemblies) where the public met and discussed social and political questions impacting them. The method of beating drums, blowing conches and trumpets to summon the people to these meetings was common in our villages even in the 1970s. Decisions of public importance taken in such meetings—such as sending requests for tax breaks, building tanks, making temple-endowments, famine relief, etc—were binding even on the king.

The history of the magnificent Vijayanagara Empire is replete with examples of the manner in which the monarchs feared public opinion. The usurpation of the throne by Saluva Narasimha caused huge uproar among the public and he as king had to go to extraordinary lengths to pacify the people. The same public opinion welcomed the accession of Sri Krishnadevaraya with open arms. And the same Krishnadevaraya had to abolish the marriage tax—payable both by the bride and the groom at the time of marriage—bowing to the force of public opinion.

Postscript

When we speak of the various golden ages of Hindu rule, what we really mean is that these Hindu rulers respected and even feared public opinion. The golden age was possible because there was this level of genuine harmony on the part of both the ruler and the people.

In many ways, the present system of democracy makes a sham of public opinion because our current political class is bothered merely about perception, not public opinion. Public opinion is meaningless unless both proactive action and timely redressal occur, measured by outcome. Unlike the Hindu monarchies of the past where direct appeal to the King was taken seriously, today’s political class has insulated itself from the public using a million degrees of separation. Cowardice and not decision is the mantra of the current Indian political class.

I will end this series with a news report I read long ago. The episode happened sometime in the early 1970s. A poor villager was fighting some case in our wonderful court system. The case had dragged on for years. It was time for yet another appearance in the court. But this time, when he gave his testimony, the judge told him, “You are lying. And you know that. Why?” The villager replied: “Why not? Our great ministers who have taken oath on all kinds of Holy Books lie with a clean conscience. I am merely following them.”

Think about this episode in the context of public opinion in our own time.

Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/from-kautilya-to-congress-downfall-of-public-opinion-in-indian-public-life

---------
*Updated : 2026

State and Statecraft in Kautilya's Arthasastra by Dr Aseem Prakash

Abstract

Kautilya's Arthasastra (4th century B.C.) is one of the most influential treatise in

Political Science in the Indian Civilization. This work deals with virtually all aspects

of governance in a monarchical state. In the Indian philosophy, the objective of

every being is the pursuit of dharma. State, a human artifact, is constituted to get

the human race out of the state of nature. State enables the citizens to follow their

respective dharma and to enjoy private property rights. King is viewed as a protector

of dharma, but not the sole interpreter of it. There is separation between secular and

ecclesiastical power. State has many autonomous associations and guilds in its

jurisdiction and the ensuing polycentric arrangements checks the rise of absolute

power. Arthasastra visualizes a huge bureaucratic structure, a complex tax structure,

and an intricate intelligence system.

Introduction

Republican form of governments were well established in ancient India. At the time

of the invasion of Alexander of Macedonia (4th century B.C.), there existed a large

number of independent Ganas (republics) like Agrasrenies in the Indus valley,

Kamboj in the west, Panchals in the north etc (Sen, 1920:Ch.3; Ghoshal, 1923:2).2

Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra, was a product of this era.3 He played the main

role in defeating the forces of Alexander. Kautilya believed that the Alexander's

successful conquest of (a part of) India was due to the absence of a strong

centralized Indian empire. He was determined not to let history repeat itself. Hence

the Mauryan empire, which he was instrumental in founding, was (relatively)

centralized and very different from the then prevailing republican systems. His

treatise - Arthasastra, therefore, deals only with the governance in a monarchical

state.

I am indebted to Prof. Thrainn Eggertsson for reading through the script and giving useful suggestions.

2 A typical republic had a representative assembly for deliberation and decision making. There were elaborate codified rules on how to conduct the proceedings, move resolutions, and oppose resolutions in the assembly. The size of the assembly varied across republics - Sakas had an assembly of five hundred representatives while Yaudheyas had an assembly of five thousand representatives (Rao, 1958:29).

3 Kautilya was a professor of Political Science in the famous Gurukul (university) of Takshashila (now in Afghanistan). He was also the teacher (and subsequently the Chief Minister) of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Mauryan Empire.

Many Occidental scholars have argued that the Hindu4 philosophy is anti-thetical to

the concept of a state. Max Muller (1859:31) has observed that

" the Hindus were a nation of philosophers. Their struggles were the struggles of thought, their past, the problem of creation, their future, the problem of existence It might therefore be justly said that India has no place in the political history of the world ".

Prof. Bloomfield has also argued in the same vein :

" from the beginning of India's history, religious institutions controlled the character and development of its people to an extent unknown elsewhere ... there is no provision in such a scheme for the interests of the state and the development of the race ".5

Max Weber saw an absence of 'rational practical ethic' in Hinduism. He believed that the rational natural science could not develop in India since the Hindu civilization devalued the empirical world (Chaturvedi, 1984:49).6

The term 'Hindu' is not found in the ancient Indian texts - what is mentioned is 'Aryan'. 'Hindu' came into use with the invasion of the Muslims (8th century A.D.) who described the people living on the east of the river Sindhu (Indus) as 'Hindus'. Hence in this paper I shall us the term 'Vedic Civilization' (the Vedas were the accepted basis of knowledge) or the 'Dharmic Civilization' (the main governing principle in a life of an Aryan was the pursuit of dharma) instead of 'Hindu Civilization'. I am not using the term 'Aryan Civilization' because of the negative connotations associated with it in

the Occident.

Chaturvedi (1984:52-3) has argued that a Dharmic civilization is a secular civilization. This is because dharma is a secular (non-religious) concept - its view of man and the world is not derived from anything outside the world but from the inherent nature of the man.

5 Willoughby draws a contrast between the Hindus and Jews on one hand and the Greeks on the other :

" Instead of projecting themselves in the sphere of religion, like the people of India

and Judea, Greeks took their stand in the realm of thought ...they attempted to conceive the world in the light of reason ".

6 Max Weber's inquiry was directed towards exploring the role of religion in preventing the capitalist development to take place in India. He believed that the central objective of the Hindu religion is towards salvation. Thus knowledge was focussed towards understanding the 'significance' of the world and the life. Such knowledge cannot be established by means of empirical science.

Hence natural science based on empirical world was devalued and this resulted in the lack of the spirit of Capitalism (Weber, 1958:330-31).

For a rebuttal to Max Weber's thesis on Hinduism, see Chaturvedi (1984).

3

Vedic philosophy gives emphasis to both the material and the spiritual aspects of

the human being. The path of pravriti (enjoyment) and that of nivriti (renunciation)

are seen to complement each other (Ghoshal, 1923:7). 'Rational sciences' such as

Mathematics were well developed in ancient India - the concept of 'shunya' (zero)

and the decimal system were invented by the 'buddhijivi (those who make a living

from the use of brain power - intellectuals) of the Vedic civilization.

The rationality ethic is the basis of many ancient dharmic texts. Treatise like the

Arthasastra advocate the application of reason to statecraft to such an extent that

many Occidental scholars have called Kautilya as the "Machiavelli of India". 8

I am indebted to Prof. Audun Sandberg for encouraging me to consider the work of Max Weber for the purpose of this paper.

A provoking account of 'East through the eyes of the West' is found in Arthur Koestler's The Lotus and the Robot. Koestler (1960:281) has observed that

" our cherished habit of contrasting the contemplative and spiritual East with the

crude materialism of the West is based on a fallacy. The contrast is not between

spirituality and materialism, but between two basically different philosophies

7 In Manusamhita II (224) (the text given by the law giver - Manu) it is observed that

" (some declare that) the chief good consists in (the acquisition of) spiritual merit and

wealth, (others place it) in (the gratification of) desire and (the acquisition of) wealth,

(others) in (the acquisition of) spiritual merit alone, and (others say that the

acquisition of) wealth alone is the chief good here (below); but the (correct) decision

is that it is the aggregate of (these) three ".

Kautilya emphasized the 'Doctrine of Trivarga' (three goals). According to him

" Every man was required to strive to satisfy his spiritual needs by fulfilling his

religious and moral duties (Dharma); his material needs by acquiring the necessities

of life, property, wealth and power (Artha); his instinctive desires by following the

dictates of love (Kama). In later times, Moksha (deliverance from the cycle of death -

rebirth) was added as a fourth and highest aim of life " (Rao, 1958:112).

In a period prior to that of Kautilya, the doctrine of Trivarga, came under severe intellectual attack from the Charvaka school of materialistic thinkers who belittled the Vedic moral code and preached hedonism. However, the renunciation doctrines like Buddhism and Jainism as well as the Vedic counter-attack did manage to intellectually subdue this school (Verma, [1954] 1974:66).

8 Rao (1958:15-18) has argued that Kautilya's contribution is similar to that of Aristotle's than of Machiavelli's. Both Aristotle (in Politics) and Kautilya (in Arthasastra) have outlined their respective conceptions of a 'state'. Interestingly, both the masters belong to the same era and both were teachers of the two clashing titans - Aristotle of Alexander and Kautilya of Chandragupta.

4

Origin of Arthasastra

Kautilya was from 'kutil gotra'9, hence the name Kautilya. Since he was born at

Chanaka and his father's name was also Chanaka, he came to be known as

Chanakya (Rao, 1958:3).10 Kautilya's Arthasastra is a compendium of and

commentary on the then existing texts on polity and statecraft.11 Kautilya

presented them in a coherent and systematic manner and refined them on the basis

of his enormous experience as the Chief Minister in the court of Chandragupta

Maurya.1 2

There is a controversy regarding the authorship of Arthasastra. Many Occidental

scholars have argued that Kautilya could not have authored it as many of the

concepts in the treatise were practiced only in the later epochs. It has been

suggested that Kautilya is merely a pseudo name for a later author(s) who belonged

to the school of thought associated with Kautilya.13 These contentions are

disputed by Indian scholars who point out that many of the concepts used by

Kautilya are infact associated with only the fourth century B.C. (Shamasastry, [1915]

9 Gotra is a sub division of a varna. It signifies a common ancestry - in case of Brahmins, many a times the gotra is associated with an ancient sage. Weber (1958:10) has defined gotra as "members of an ancient well-known Brahmin sib ".

1 0 Kautilya/ Chanakya is also known by the name of Vishnugupta.

11 In the opening lines of Arthasastra, Kautilya (Book 1, Ch. 1) notes that

" this Arthasastra is made as a compendium of almost all the Arthasastra, which, in

view of acquisition and maintenance of earth, have been composed by ancient

teachers ".

1 2 Chandragupta Maurya founded the Mauryan empire in 321 B.C. He had defeated the two greatest powers of the era - Alexander of Macedonia and King Nanda of Magadh - the largest Indian empire. Chandragupta's son, Bindusar, and grandson, Ashoka, are well known for their huge and benign empires. Ashoka's empire was probably the truest manifestation of Kautilya's conception of an

ideal empire.

1 3 Traumann (1971) has used mathematical programming to study the authorship of Arthasistra.

His proposition (validated by previous research) is that the basic style (e.g. the average length of the sentence, the frequency of occurrence of compound words, the frequency of use of simple participles etc) of an author remains constant throughout the text even if the author has spent years to write the text. On the basis of intricate mathematical analysis, Traumann has concluded that Arthasastra has

been authored by at least three persons.

1967:viii-xiv; Rao, 1958:14-15).

Framework of Arthasastra

Arthasastra means the science (sastra) of wealth/earth/polity (artha). This treatise is

divided into sixteen books dealing with virtually every topic concerned with the

running of a state - taxation, law, diplomacy, military strategy, economics,

bureaucracy etc. Arthasastra advocates rational ethic to the conduct of the affairs of

the state. The emphasis is on codification of law and uniformity of law throughout

the empire.

The basis of good governance is knowledge and Arthasastra classifies knowledge

into four categories (Kautilya: Book 1, Ch. 2,3 & 4; Ghoshal, 1923:128-31).

1. Anvikasi (philosophy). This is considered to be the "lamp of all sciences".

2. Trayi (the three Vedas - Sama, Rig and Yajur). These texts establish the four

classes (varnas) 15 and the four orders (ashrams). 16

14 For example, the use of yukta to refer to a period of five years ; characterizing the month of Sravana rather than Ashada as the start of the rainy season (Jaiswal).

15 The Vedic society, as conceived by Manu, is divided horizontally into four varnas - Brahmin(intellectual), Kshatriya (warrior), Vaishya (trader and agriculturist), and Shudra (artisan and the worker). Varna system constitutes a division of labor at the societal level. The membership to the varna is not fixed. In case a person changes his/her occupation, his/her varna can change. For example, Chandragupta Maurya was not a Kshatriya by birth. He was a herdsman which in contemporary India would be classified as a 'backward caste'. He became a Kshatriya subsequent to his ascendancy to the throne.

Over the course of time, since professions became hereditary, varna system became ossified and degenerated into a caste system. However castes could move upwards in the varna hierarchy. In contemporary India, there have been many cases where lower castes have moved up in the social hierarchy by adopting customs of the upper castes, although the professions of these castes have remained the same. This has been termed as the process of 'sanskritization' (Srinivas, 1966:1-46).

For example, many castes belonging to farming communities are now considered to be brahmins as they have adopted customs like vegetarianism which are identified with the brahmins.

Though the Brahmin occupied the top rung of the social hierarchy, the monarch belonged to the Kshatriya caste. This is an interesting example of social engineering where polycentricity in power relationship is created to keep a check on the emergence of absolutism. The varna system institutionalized the separation of the ecclesiastical power from the secular power - a phenomenon which took place in Western Europe only with the Papal Revolution (1075 -1122 A.D.) (Berman,

1983:83).

3. Varta (economics, specifically agriculture, cattle breeding, and trade).

4. Dandanfti (science of government and politics).

Concept of the State

The institution of state is created to enable the individual to practise his/her dharma

17 and thus move towards the emancipation from the cycle of death-rebirth. The

condition of arajat (lawlessness) was viewed with distaste as it militated against the

practicing of dharma. There is reference in many ancient Vedic texts to Matsya-

Nyaya (Law of the Fish) which prevails in the state of nature.18 Such a state is

characterized by the absence of dharma and mamatava (private property rights).19

The four ashrams (orders) are Brahmacharya (studenthood, emphasis is on abstinence and on acquiring knowledge), Grihastya (married life, emphasis is on bhog (enjoyment) of material pleasures), Vanaprastha (retiring to woods for meditation), and Sanyas (asceticism).

Vedic philosophy does not encourage asceticism for anyone of any age. Kautilya, a firm believer in the ashram system, was opposed to such pseudo-asceticism. Arthasastra prescribes strict penalties for citizens who take up sanyas (asceticism) without sufficiently providing for their families. Kautilya's

distaste for Buddhism was for the same reason - Buddhism encouraged asceticism for people of all ages. Kautilya believed that this was socially destabilizing as if every one became a monk then who shall run the society (Rao, 1958:21-22).

17 Texts have highlighted five different aspects of dharma. These are a) religion, a category of theology, b) virtue, a category of ethics, c) law, a category of jurisprudence, d) justice, and e) duty. In political texts, especially the Arthasastra, dharma has been interpreted in terms of law, justice and duty. Thus according to the doctrine of dharma, state is a law giving, justice dispensing,and duty enforcing institution (Sarkar, 1922:206).

The ancient text of Mahabharata speaks of ten embodiment of dharma : yasa (fame), satya (truth), dama (self-control), shaucha (cleanliness), arjava (simplicity), hri (endurance), acapalam (resoluteness of character), dana (giving and sharing), tapas (austerities), brahmacharya (continence)

(Chaturvedi, 1984:54-5).

18 There is a reference to 'matsya ny'aya' in many ancient texts including the Mahabharata (6th century B.C.), the Ramanaya (predates Mahabharata), and Manusamhita (predates Ramanaya).

Confucius civilization , in contrast to the Vedic Civilization, views law and order to be an intrinsic part of nature and not a creation of the human entity. Thus if anarchy exists, it is attributed to violation of filial piety (a natural law) by human beings (Yang, 1987:16).

1 9 Vedic civilization sanctified individual property rights. The King was not even the notional owner of land. He was a protector of land for which he had the right to levy taxes. This conceptualization of the relationship between the King and the citizen is in contrast to the belief system in the Confucius civilization where the emperor was the notional owner of the land. Hence in the Confucius civilization, the tillers of land didn't pay tax - they paid a rent to the King (Yang,1987:11).

7

State, which wields the instruments of coercion (danda), is constituted to get the

society out of this quagmire 20 Thus the state enables two things - the practice of

dharma and the bhog (enjoyment) of private property rights.21

The Vedic state can be viewed as "qualified monism" in which the autonomy and the

diversity of the various social groups residing within the boundaries of the state was

recognized (Rao 1958:75) 22 Citizens had multiple loyalties - to the state as well as

Manu has observed -" Durlabho hi suchirnarah ", that is, rare is a man pure or sinless". The famous philosopher Kamandanka argued for the necessity of danda as " men are by nature subject to passions and are covetous of another's wealth and wives " (Sarkar, 1922:199).

Hobbes ([1651] 62:3) has also emphasized the importance of coercive power in the establishment of and for proper functioning of a society -" for covenants without swords are but words and no strength to secure man at all ". The question is, do we always need an external authority to wield the 'sword' or are the human communities capable of evolving and sustaining such capabilities themselves ? Kautilya would have argued for the necessity of both the internal and the external sword - to be used for different purposes. The legitimacy for both the swords, in the Vedic conception, would come from the same principle - the pursuit of dharma.

The Vedic civilization sought to tackle the free rider problem through the institution of 'danda'. Kautilya realized that the moral imperative - dharma, alone could not prevent free riding. Hence a system of coercion and sanctions -danda, needs to be in operation. The Weberian concept of a state as a seat of legitimized violence matches well with the Vedic conception - the seat of legitimized danda.

21 The causal nexus between the state of nature (matsya nyaya) and breakdown of a social order, as described in the ancient epic of Mahabharata, is as follows :

" then foolishness or stupidity (moha) seized their minds. Their intelligence thus being

eclipsed, the sense of justice (dharma) was lost. Cupidity or temptation (lobha)

overpowered them next. Thus arose the desire (kama) for possessing things not

possessed. And this led to their being subjugated by an affection (raga) under which

they began to ignore the distinction between what should and what should not be

done. Consequently there appeared sexual license, libertinism in speech and diet,

and indifference to morals. When such a revolution set in among men, Brahman (the

idea of Godhead) disappeared, and with it, law (dharma)" (Sarkar, 1922:197).

Dharma and not religion, was the basis of legitimization of the state. Vedic religion (if it can be called a religion) advocates pantheism. It is not uncommon to find that X is worshipped as a deity in area #1, but X is viewed as an asura (man/woman pursuing wrong goals; this not equivalent to a devil) in area #2. When the deities are not only numerous but also in opposition to each other, it becomes difficult to mobilize people in the name of religion. Dharma, on the other hand, has an appeal across

deities. Its non-contestable character therefore served as an useful attribute for the legitimization of the state.

22 Guild have been referred to by various names in the Arthasastra. Some of these are Sreni, Kula, Puga, Gana, and Sangha (Rao, 1958:60).

8 to the guild/association These associations were knit together on the basis of two

principles - military imperative (strength in unity) and the principle of dharma (Rao,

1958:58). These bodies had well specified rules of governance and a code of

conduct. They zealously guarded their autonomy and the King could not trample on

their customs and traditions. To ensure that the King and the associations do not

overstep their respective limits, the Superintendent of Accounts had to codify the

history, the customs, and the traditions of every association (Rao, 1958:66).

However, the relationship between the individual body and the state was not of

competition or of turf protection. Both the bodies had a role to play in enabling the

citizen to follow his dharma.24 Interestingly, there was a Department of

Commissioners (Pradeshtarah) to protect the interest of the individual in the

association (Rao, 1958:74). Thus there was a mechanism to protect the individual

from the larger association (tyranny of the majority) and the association from the

State (tyranny of the Leviathan).

The King was looked upon an embodiment of virtue, a protector of dharma. He too

was governed by his dharma as any other citizen was. Thus if any actions of the

King went against the prevailing notion of dharma, associations and/or the individual

citizens were free to question him. King was not the sole interpreter of dharma.

Infact there was no specific institution (like the ecclesiastical courts) vested with the

authority of interpreting dharma. Every individual was deemed competent to interpret

Tocqueville ([1848] 1969:287-301) has viewed religion to be the first political institution of the United States. I would view the guilds and associations to be the first political institutions of the Vedic society.

23 Ostrom's (1991:Ch. 9) concept of 'polycentricity' is similar to this arrangement. Ostrom rightly underlines the role of a polycentric order in preserving self-governance and therefore checking absolutism and centralization. Both Ostrom and the Vedic school believe that polycentricity is a human artifact. The main philosophical difference between Ostrom approach and the Vedic approach

is that for Ostrom individual is the basic unit of analysis (ibid:227). In the Vedic philosophy there exists no clash between the individual and the cosmos - every living entity is a part of the 'universal spirit - Brahman. Hence 'methodological individualism' in not critical for polycentric political arrangements in the Vedic philosophy.

However, reliance on dharma assumes away co-ordination costs and transaction costs - somewhat in the spirit of the Walrasian model of general equilibrium ! (I owe this point to Prof. Thrainn Eggertsson).

24 It is difficult to characterize the Vedic state as being a federation or a confederation of guilds/associations (I am using these terms as per Ostrom, 1991:72). Guilds were a social entity and not merely a professional or political entity. An individual citizen could be a member of more than one of such associations. Hence I am not inclined to interpret that the Vedic state came into being as a consequence of these associations entering into a covenantal relationship with each other and with

the central authority. This was an important factor in ensuring the non-religious character of the Vedic state.

Elements of the State and the Role of the King

Arthasastra conceptualizes the state to have seven elements

(saptanga,)(Kautilya: Book 6, Ch. 1; Sarkar, 1922:167-9; Verma, [1954] 74:80; Rao,

1958:82).

1. Swami (Monarch)

2. Amatya (Officials)

3. Janapada (Population and Territory)

4. Durga (Fort)

5. Kosa (Treasury)

6. Bala (Military)26

7. Surhit (Ally)

King derived his power from three sources - Prabhushakti (the power of the army

and the treasury), Mantashakti (advice of wise men, specifically the Council of

Ministers) and Utsahshakti (charisma). Mantashakti was rated as the most potent

source followed by the prabhushakti and utsahshakti. Clearly Kautilya believed in

the importance of institutions (Council of Ministers) and not of an individual (King) in

The Vedic conception of a King is different from the Hobbesian conception of a 'Leviathan'.

According to Hobbes

" men confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of

men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will ... and the

multitude so united in one person is called the commonwealth ... this is the

generation of that great leviathan...of that mortal god, to which we owe under the

immortal god, our peace and defense" (Hobbes, [1651] 1962:132).

The Vedic King was not an absolute monarch - he was certainly not a 'mortal god'. He was a protector of dharma but not the sole interpreter of it. He governed on the basis of the advice of the Council of Ministers. Further, the numerous autonomous associations which constitute his kingdom,were also an effective check on his power.

Confucian tradition views the King in yet another light - the emperor heads a family - the society.

Thus emperor - citizen relationship is conceptualized by invoking filial piety (Yang, 1987:23).

Kautilya had organized a huge standing army financed directly by the treasury. I would argue that organization of a standing army is a major factor in centralizing the state apparatus. When the King is dependent of the subunits or the guilds for the army manpower, he has share power with them. Kautilya, a believer in centralization, realized that a strong standing army was a pre requisite

for a strong monarchial state.

10

Next to the King came the Mantri Parishad (Council of Minister). King was enjoined

to discuss each and every matter with the Parishad as it represented the distilled

wisdom of the society. Parishad had two levels - the Inner cabinet and the Outer

cabinet. The Inner cabinet had four members - The Chief Minister, The Chief Priest,

the Military Commander and the Crown Prince. The Crown Prince was included to

ensure smooth succession and to maintain continuity in case of emergencies. The

membership of the Outer cabinet was not fixed in number. Invariably the heads of

the prominent guilds were co-opted in this body. This gave a representative

character of the Parishad (Rao: 1958:86-7).

Kautilya glorified the State and viewed the office Kingship to be the embodiment of

all legal and moral authority associated with the institution of the state (Rao,

1958:50). The King was an intrinsic part of the social order and by the nature of his

office, a defender of that order. However King was to regard himself as an agent of

the people and had to abide by his dharma as laid out in the Sastras. The institution

of the Kingship was sacred but not the person who happens to hold it (Sarkar,

1922:174). 2 8

Duties of the Kings

Kautilya did not subscribe to the theory of 'Divine Origin of the Monarch'. King was

not the vicar of the god.2 9 Monarchy, in his view, was a human institution and

therefore manned by a human being. However the king was expected to be more

than a mere human being since he was the protector of the dharma of the whole

I will also interpret this as a manifestation of the brahmin in Kautilya - emphasis on the power of the intellect (a brahmin quality) rather than on the charisma of the King (a kshatriya quality).

28 Kautilya (Book 1, 16) has described the following ideal for the King :

Prajasukhe sukham rajnah, Prajanam ca hite hitam

Natmapriyam hitam rajanah, Prajanam tu priyam hitam

" The monarch should seek happiness in the happiness of his

citizens, his welfare is in their welfare, his good is not in what pleases

him but in what pleases the citizens ".

2 9 Since Vedic belief system encourages pantheism, it was not possible for the King to claim to be the vicar of the millions of gods and goddesses, many of which are in conflict with each other.

This also implies that the King could not gain legitimacy by claiming to be the 'protector of the religion' - he could only make a claim to be a protector of the moral order - to enable the individual to follow his dharma.

11

He had to observe an exemplary conduct himself. 30 He had no private

life and all his actions were subject to public scrutiny (Rao, 1958:122).

The King had to follow a his rayja dharma. This included a thorough knowledge of

the four branches of knowledge (Ghoshal,1923:139). The King was expected to

display Atma vrata (self-control) and for this he had to abandon the 'six enemies -

kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), mana (vanity), mada (haughtiness), and

harsha (overjoy) (Kautilya:Book 1, Ch. 7; Rao, 1958:56). Clearly Kautilya expected

very high standards from the rulers. This is in contrast to the realistic model of the

citizen on which he based so many of his laws.

The King had a fairly regimented daily routine. His day and night was divided into

eight nalikas (one and half hours) each. The King was assigned specific tasks for

the specific nalika.3 1

Taxation

Kautilya visualized a 'dharmic social contract' between the King and the citizens.

Taxes were levied for maintenance of the social order and for the state run welfare

apparatus. 32 In case of aggression by an outside agency, the janapads (districts)

could ask for tax remission as the King had failed in his duty to protect the citizens

(Rao, 1958:213).

Kautilya realized the critical role of the tax system for ensuring the economic wellbeing

The hallmark of his tax system was 'certainty' - of time, of rate

and of the mode of payment (Rao, 1958:213). Stability in the tax regime was an

important factor in ensuring active trade and commerce in the Mauryan empire. This

in turn strengthened the revenue base of the state and enabled it to maintain a huge

standing army and the welfare apparatus.

There is ancient Vedic saying -" Yatha Raja Thafa Praja " - the character of the King

determines the character of the citizens.

31 Schedule during the day : 1st Nalika - attend book of accounts, 2nd - attend to public grievances, 3rd - bathe & dine, 4th - oversee the bureaucracy, 5th - meet ministers, 6th - see the intelligence reports, 7th - inspect horses, elephants & chariots , 8th - military affairs.

Schedule during the night : 1st - receive spies, 2nd - bathe & dine, 3rd - harem, 4th & 5th - sleep, 6th- plan his day, 7th - administrative matters, 8th - consult the priest, astrologer and the Chief Minister

(Kautilya:Book 1, Ch. 19).

Sukra, the famous philosopher, viewed the King's position to be one of the dasyatva

(servitude) - "the ruler has been made by Brahma (the highest god) a servant of the people. His revenue is the remuneration for his services. He is sovereign or the master solely in order that he may protect" (Sarkar, 1922:175-6).

12

State was overzealous in collection of taxes and tapped virtually every source.

Citizens paid a toll-tax. Farmers (household as the unit of assessment) had to pay

one sixth of the produce as the land tax. There was a land census at periodic

intervals and land records were scrupulously maintained. This data base enabled

the assessment of the taxable capacity of the household. Traders had to pay one

tenth the value of the merchandize as tax. There was an entry tax to enter the fort,

tax on use of roads and waterways, and for getting a passport. Even the hermits

living in the forest had to part with one sixth of the grain gleaned by them as they

too needed the protection of the King (Ghoshal, 1923:133-4). Service industry was

also taxed - actors, dancers, soothsayers, prostitutes, and auctioneers were

subjected to taxation. Pilgrims had to pay a Yatra Vetna (pilgrimage tax). Citizens

had to pay a tax (Pranaya Kriya) for the acts of benevolence (Rao, 1958:209-210).

System of law

Kautilya did not view law to be an expression of the free will of the people. Thus

sovereignty - the authority to make laws, did not vest with citizens. Laws were

derived from four sources - dharma (scared law), vyavhara (evidence), charita

(history and custom), and rajasasana (edicts of the King). In case of conflict

amongst the various laws, dharma was supreme. The ordering of the other laws

was case specific (Kautilya:Book 3, Ch. 1). 33

Rajasasana ordered the relationship between the three major social groupings - the

citizen, the association, and the state. The constitutional rules at the state level were

specified in the rajasasana but the constitutional rules at the level of the association

were to be decided by the members of the association. The collective choice and

the operational level rules of the association were also decided by the members of

the association though the state did promulgate laws to safeguard the individual

member from the tyranny of the majority in the association.

Arthasastra outlines a system of civil, criminal, and mercantile law. For example the

following were codified : a procedure for interrogation, torture, and trial, the rights of

the accused, what constitutes permissible evidence, a procedure for autopsy in case

of death in suspicious circumstances, what constitutes defamation and procedure for

claiming damages, valid and invalid contracts (Kautilya, Book 4, Ch. 7 & 8).

What was supreme in the Vedic society - citizens or the state/king ? My answer would be neither. What was supreme was dharma.

Filial piety was the basis of ordering relationship in the Confucian society. I will argue that dharma played a similar role in the Vedic society.

3 4 I am using the concept of constitutional, collective, and operational rules as per Ostrom E

(1990:50-55).

13

Bureaucracy

Kautilya had organized a huge and intricate network of bureaucracy to manage the

Mauryan empire. This also reflected the centralized character of the state.

Bureaucracy had thirty divisions each headed by Adhyakshas (Chiefs). Reporting

relationships were clearly specified.

Kautilya had visualized the necessity of state provision of public goods which

strengthened trade and commerce. The bureaucracy was involved in the provision

of three of such goods - the 'quality control machinery', the system of currency, and

the system of 'weights and measures'. Quality control was a revolutionary concept

for that era. This suggests that Mauryan empire had an active trading sector and the

buyers (domestic and exports) were discerning. As a mark of quality, merchandise

had to be marked with the Abhigyan Mudra (state stamp) in sindura (vermillion).

Counterfeiting was strictly punished (Rao, 1958:218).

Bureaucrats received a fixed pay and were also eligible for state subsidized housing

(Rao, 1958:220). 35 This is an example of Kautilya's deep understanding of

statecraft as even in later centuries (in other empires), officials were expected to

compensate themselves by retaining a part of revenue extracted from the people (a

kind of ad-valorem compensation). The ad-valorem arrangement provided an

incentive for the official to squeeze the tax payer as much as possible (a short term

on the part of the bureaucrat) as the bureaucratic tenure was not hereditary.

Kautilya, given his experience as a Chief Minister, probably realized the peril of such

an (ad valorem) arrangement and created a fixed pay compensation structure for

the bureaucracy.36

Huge bureaucracy invariably result in a principal-agent problem. Kautilya sought to

tackle this issue through three means - elaborately monitored standard operating

Bureaucrats and other officials received fixed annual salaries in the following order (1$=28

panas approximately) : Ministers, Chief Priest, Crown Prince, Mother of the King, Queen,Commander-in-Chief - 48,000 panas, Collector General, Commanders 24,000 panas, Other Princes,Chief Constable 12, 000 panas, Commissioner of the city 12,000 panas, Superintendents of the

departments 9,000 panas, Accountants 500 panas etc. (Kautilya:Book 5, Ch. 3; Rao, 1958:221).

I am propounding a Douglass Northian (1981:16-17) argument that the structure of property rights determines what percentage of gains of innovation are retained by the innovator, hence influence the incentive to innovate, and hence influence economic growth of the society. The ad valorem compensation (given a short time frame of the bureaucrat and given the cost of tax collection for the bureaucrat equals the marginal tax extraction - bureaucrat's marginal revenue, only when the tax payer has reached the subsistence level) would encourage the 'rational' bureaucrat to squeeze the tax payer as much as possible. In such a situation, the tax payer (peasant; trader,

manufacturer etc) would have little incentive to innovate and generate a surplus as anything above subsistence would be mopped up by the bureaucrat.

14

procedures (SOPs), spies/intelligence organization, and decentralization of authority.

SOPs minimized the room for subjective interpretation of the rules by the

bureaucrats. The superiors carefully monitored the performance of the officials under

their control.37 However this system of close monitoring must have resulted in

enormous transaction costs. It was therefore supplemented by the intelligence

organization which kept a watch on the corrupt practices of the officials. The exploits

of the spies in catching corrupt officials were given wide publicity and this made the

officials careful in their dealings with the citizens. Another measure to keep a check

on the bureaucracy was decentralized-polycentric political arrangements which

resulted in empowering of the local guilds. Thus the bureaucrats had to reckon with

an effective local power center who were aware of the royal edicts and prevented

the bureaucrat from substituting his/her objective function for the royal edict. It is

interesting that Kautilya did not take recourse to ideology to discipline the

bureaucracy. Probably he realized that if a bureaucrat is violating the SOPs he/she

is already going against his dharma. If a socially sanctified belief system as that of a

dharma could not discipline the bureaucrat, how could a ruler given ideology (for the

glory of the Mauryan empire) work ? 38

System of Spies

Kautilya was a product of the age of intrigue. He defeated Alexander of Macedonia

and the Nanda king (most powerful Indian empire of that era) on the basis of military

prowess and political craft. According to Kautilya, the King has to guard against

intrigues from internal and external sources. Internal sources include the inner

cabinet, the autonomous associations/ guilds, religious orders and the personality of

the king himself (atma-dosa). External sources refers to hostile foreign powers.

The intelligence apparatus was very elaborate and had infiltrated virtually every

institution and profession - especially the institutions of mass participation like

religion. Spies could be under the following guises - kapatika chhatra (fraudulent

discipline), udasthita (recluse), grihapalka (householder), vaidehaka (merchant),

tapas (an ascetic practicing austerities), satri (a classmate), tikshna (a fireband),

rasada (a poisoner) and a bhikshuki (a mendicant woman) (Kautilya, Book 1, Ch.

11).

Kautilya lists forty kinds of misappropriation of funds by the bureaucrats. The informant giving information on corruption was entitled one sixth of the amount as a reward. There is also a fascinating description of how the departmental supervisors should check whether expenditures have been incurred for the desired end - including the heads (labor,capital and material) of the

expenditure. (Arthasastra: Book 2, Chapters 8 & 9).

38 A concise and interesting discussion on the agency problem in large bureaucracies is provided in Eggertsson (1990:333-340).

15

Monks and the sanghas (association of monks) were actively used for the purpose

of gathering intelligence. Kautilya even suggested that to assassinate a rival King,

weapons may be kept inside an idol and be used when the King comes for worship.

Thus Kautilya did not hesitate to use the institution of religion for the purpose of

statecraft. For him, the most important condition for the practice of dharma was not

the institution of religion but the institution of the state.

Intelligence operations were greatly aided by the maintenance of a 'national citizen

register' and a system of passport and visa. Register was updated by regularly

conducted censuses and by the compulsory registration of the births and deaths

(Rao, 1958:209).

Conclusion

Arthasastra is a very comprehensive treatise on the governance in a monarchical

Vedic state. Kautilya had a rational approach to governance and statecraft. He

conceptualized the state and the office of the kingship to be human artifacts. Also

his model of the human being was very realistic. However he expected super

human qualities from a 'human' King. Chandragupta, Bindusar and Ashoka

matched this ideal but their successors could not. Clearly the system of checks and

balances amongst the king, the associations and the citizens worked well as long as

the King wanted it to work.

The ideal society of the Arthasastra did last for a couple of centuries. However the

successful Muslims invasion in the 8th century indicated a serious (military)

deficiency in the 'Hindu' society. The vision of Kautilya was a creation of a strong

and prosperous Vedic order so the foreigner invasions (like that of Alexander) could

be repulsed. The success of the Muslim invasion suggested that either the

governance by the 'Hindu' Kings was not according to the tenets of the Arthasastra

or the Arthasastra philosophy itself had become antiquated. Probably both were

true. Kings had certainly deviated from the Vedic ideal of a 'dharmic king' - the

'servant' of the people and the protector of the dharmic order. Varna system had

degenerated into a caste system. The rational and dharmic order of the Arthasastra

had ben reduced to only a shadow of its past glory. Muslim invasion probably found

an easy target in a moribund order.

16

References

Berman Harold J (1983) : Law and Revolution - The Formation of the Western Legal

Tradition : London & Cambridge Mass. Harvard University Press.

Bloomfield : Religion of Vedas : In, Ghoshal (1923):4.

Chaturvedi Badrinath (1984) : Max Weber's Wrong Understanding of Indian

Civilization : In, Detlef Kantowsky ed. : Recent Research on Max Weber's Studies

on Hinduism : Munchen, Koln & London, Welforum Verlag :45-58.

Eggertsson Thrainn (1990) [Economic Behavior and Institutions : Cambridge

University Press.

Ghoshal Upendranatha (1923) :.A History of Hindu Political Theories : London,

Bombay .Madras & Calcutta, Oxford University Press.

Hobbes Thomas ([1651] 1962) : Leviathan or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a

Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil: Oakeshott Michael (ed.), New York &

London, Collier Books.

Jaiswal K P : Hindu Polity : In, Rao (1958) : 14-15.

Kautilya : Arthasastra : Translated by R Shamasastry ([1915] 1967), eighth ed.,

Mysore, India, Mysore Printing and Publishing House.

Koestler Arthur (1960) : The Lotus and the Robot : Hutchinson of London.

Manusamhita II, In, Ghoshal (1923) :7.

Muller Max (1859) : History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature : In, Ghoshal (1923):3.

North Douglass (1981) : Structure and Change in Economic History : New York and

London, W.W. Norton & Company.

Ostrom Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons - The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action : Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom Vincent (1991) : The Meaning of American Federalism - Constituting a Self-

Governing Society : San Francisco, California, ICS Press.

Rao M V Krishna (1958) : Studies in Kautilya : Delhi, Munshi Ram Manohar Lai.

17

Sarkar Benoy Kumar (1922) : The Political Institutions and the Theories of the

Hindus - A Study in Comparative Politics : Leipzig, Verlag Von Market & Petters.

Sen AK (1920) : Studies in Hindu Political Thought : Calcutta Review, Dec. 1926, In,

Rao(1958).

Shamasastry R : see Kautilya - Arthasastra.

Srinivas M N (1966) : Social Change in Modern India : Berkeley & Los Angles,

University of California Press.

Tocqueville Alexis de ([1848] 1969) : Democracy In America : Edited by J P Mayer,

Translated by George Lawrence, Garden City, New York, Anchor Books.

Trautmann Thomas R (1971) : Kautilya and the Arthasastra - A Statistical

Investigation of the Authorship and the Evolution of the Text: Leiden, E J Brill.

Varma Vishwanath Prasad ([1954] 74): Studies in Hindu Political Thought and its

Metaphysical Foundations : Delhi, Varanasi, & Patna, Motilal Banarsidass

Weber Max (1958) : The Religion Of India : Translated and Edited by Hans H Gert

& Don Martindale, New York, The Free Press.

Willoughby : Political Theories of the Ancient World : In, Barker : The Political

Thought of Plato and Aristotle : 1-2, In, Ghoshal (1923): 8.

Yang Tai-Shuenn (1987) : Property Rights and Constitutional Order in Imperial

China : Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington

---------
*Updated : 2026