Classic Indian work on statecraft
Of late, there has been an intense debate within India whether the domain of Indian political thought has been grossly neglected at the expense of western political theories. This is so even as the discourse on Indian political thought is possessed of critical mass, embodies enduring legacies of thinkers and theorists ranging from ancient to modern times. The Arthasastra, a meticulously drafted treatise on statecraft developed during ancient India is one such precious source which in more ways than one forms the bedrock of the Indian political thought. The treatise is authored by a scholar named Canakya alias Kautilya during the 4th century BC. Kautilya’s principle theory is known to justifying unscrupulous means to achieve political ends. Belonging to the priestly Brahmana class, Canakya was the chief minister in the court of Chandrgupta Maurya who ruled between 320-298 BC.
In this context, The Arthasastra: Selections from the Classic Indian Work on Statecraft, an edited volume by Mark McClish and Patrick Olivelle serves great purpose in bringing out a handy reference on Arthasastra. In view of a serious knowledge dearth regarding the Arthasastra, (partly due to unavailability of text for a long period-it was retrieved only in 1905) a handbook containing translated excerpts from the ancient treatise, thematically arranged to make it better understood, is not only timely but immensely useful. A lengthy detailed preface authored by the editors provides necessary background details of the treatise.
The editors attempt to reproduce excerpts from the Arthasastra as to what they consider is the “foremost textual source” for anyone trying to study south Asian sate and politics (p. xi). Apart from core politics, the Arthasastra is also believed to be a rich source in understanding the societal patterns and trends during the classical age. Distinguishing between normative and descriptive, the book deftly elucidates select excerpts aided by explanatory notes on each. Notably, the Arthasastra has been shrouded in ambiguity and, therefore, the editors add words of caution at the beginning. For instance, whether Canakya or Kautilya were similar, is a contested notion. The author of Arthasastra is referred to as Kautilya throughout, except for a small verse towards the end which indicates the two were same. The confusion persists until a Sanskrit drama titled Mudraraksasa that described the formation of the Maurya dynasty, identifies Canakya with Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra. Similarly, there are dissenting views regarding the time when the text was produced. Most of the scholarship has used Alexander sending his emissary, Megasthenese, to the court of Chandragupta Maurya as a point to affirm the time period when Kautilya existed. After Alexander’s return, Chandragupts’s grandson, Asoka ruled the entire belt of region which is south Asia today.
The Arthasastra segregates a kingdom into seven parts arranged in order of priority. It also lists how each constituent should ideally function. The seven elements include: svāmin: the ruler; amātya: the Minister (government and administration); janapada: the people (in the countryside); durga: the fortress (capital); kośa: the treasury economy; danda: armed might and; mitra: the ally. The ancient treatise offers interesting insights such as the concentric circle formation of state to determine one’s enemy and friends. Kautilya propagates that states sharing borders are “natural enemies” and based on this principle the next circle in the concentric ring is an ally as it shares borders with the state’s imminent enemy (pp. 120-122). Similarly, Arthasastra propounds a full-fledged multi-layer espionage service to safeguard and protect the king’s rule and a six pronged foreign policy matrix: “peace pact, initialling hostilities, remaining stationary, marching into battle, seeking refuge and double stratagem” (p. 123).
The Arthasastra constitutes ideas, elements and certain advanced assertions that are relevant even today. Most of the key provisions the treatise postulates can easily relate with modern concepts and practices- for instance the foreign secret service could be correlated with contemporary politics. In fact it would be very interesting if such juxtaposition is done- picking up key elements from the Arthasastra and try identify them with modern day political cultures and norms.
The edited volume by two of the foremost authorities on Arthasastra is a blessing for those who stay uninitiated on a precious source of understanding ancient Indian political thought and traditions. The Arthasastra has largely remained an underutilized treatise. Hence, a book embodying key elements of the Arthasastra, compressed diligently, offers great academic service. The account is lucid, quite able to hold the reader’s attention. The book ranges high on value quotient since its makes complex concepts in the Arthasastra simple by contextualizing them in a framework and perspective, to the best extent possible.
The book makes a vital contribution towards reinventing Indian political thought and carving a niche for it. It would potentially serve beginners and practitioners alike. The ambit of readership is likely to be wide due to its overall generic approach, dealing with an evolving realm/subject still in the process of being discovered. Coming from a western source, the book promises to enhance the outreach of Arthasastra catering to a world wide audience.
Priyanka Singh is associate fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, India (priy2007@gmail.com).