Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c12: Appendix I. The Authenticity of the Kauṭalīya

The Mauryan Polity c12

Language
English

Appendix I. The Authenticity of the Kauṭalīya

c12.2

As the authenticity of the *Arthaśāstra* has been questioned by scholars of standing like Professors Keith¹ and Winternitz,² we propose to examine some of the arguments advanced by them in support of their theory with a view to demonstrate their inconclusiveness.

c12.3

¹ *A History of Sanskrit Literature*, p. 458-f.

c12.4

² *Some Problems of Indian Literature*, p. 82-ff. (Cal. Uni., 1925).

c12.5

(1) Dr. Winternitz refers³ to the verse in which Kauṭalya says that he had taken the kingdom from the Nandas and remarks that the real minister in a book written by the order of or intended for his king would not have written such words, for, it could not have been very pleasing to the king. The verse under reference is a piece of internal evidence which goes to confirm the traditional story in the Purāṇas of Kauṭalya’s part in the revolution which resulted in the overthrow of the ruling Nanda dynasty of Magadha and the establishment of the Mauryan dynasty.

c12.6

³ *Ibid.*, p. 96. yena śāstram ca śastram ca nandarāja gatā ca bhūḥ| amarṣeṇoddhṛtānyāśu tena śastramidam kṛtam||

c12.7

This verse is, therefore, valuable as it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the writer of the extant work of the *Arthaśāstra* is the same Kauṭalya who had contributed not a little to the overthrowing of the old dynasty and to the founding of the new dynasty. Without this verse which is indeed significant the work will not appeal to us as the accredited writing of the first Mauryan Chancellor. The objection that it is a thing not likely to have been pleasing to the king is no argument. Kauṭalya will not stand to lose by writing thus. There is a baseless version that Candragupta was not a Kṣatriya but of a mixed caste. Granting that he was a Kṣatriya, a true Kṣatriya monarch of ancient days would not unduly take on himself the credit which legitimately belonged to others. And if it were a fact that Kauṭalya took up arms openly against the reigning dynasty and helped the succeeding dynasty in securing the throne there is no reason for the king to feel displeased at such a statement.

c12.8

Dr. Winternitz translates the verse as follows:—

c12.9

"This text-book has been composed by him, who quickly and impatiently raised the *Arthaśāstra* (from former imperfect text-books) passed his sword and took the earth that had passed to the Nandas¹ (out of their hands)." We can have it translated thus: "This treatise was written by him by whom the Śāstras (not necessarily the *Arthaśāstra*), the science of weapons and the earth that had passed to the Nanda kings were soon and in jealous anger raised aloft." According to V. A. Smith the Nanda king who was deposed and slain by Candragupta was of low caste and a heretic hostile to the Brahmanas and the Kṣatriyas.² He further remarks that "the nine Nandas were considered to be unholy persons unworthy of inclusion in orthodox Hindu annals". Then it is clear that during the period of the Nandas that both the *śāstras* of the Brahmanical science and the *śastra* or the Kṣatriya science, were in a

c12.10

¹ *Op. cit.*, p. 96.

c12.11

² *Oxford Hist.*, p. 57.

c12.12

neglected and decadent condition. This receives corroboration from the Aśokan Edicts where Aśoka expresses in certain places the neglect of certain institutions and the practice of some aspects of *dharma* by his predecessors. The elevation to the throne of an orthodox King like Candragupta led automatically to the elevation of both the *śāstra* and the *śastra*. Kauṭalya who could have played no mean part in bringing about this happy consummation, has expressed in this verse his contempt for the Nandas and his relief at the succession of Candragupta. As I have said elsewhere he compliments the king by complimenting himself. The verse is then a visible demonstration, by Kauṭalya, of his satisfaction at the new state of affairs of the kingdom with Candragupta at its head. And rightly Professor Jacobi reads into these lines "the proud self-consciousness of a great statesman of the Indian Bismarck" as he calls Kauṭalya.

c12.13

(2) There is another statement² as explicit as this which mentions that the work was mainly intended for his king (Narendra). Why he felt called upon to undertake this arduous task can be easily explained. Previous to the epoch of the Nandas and the Mauryas we have not definitely alighted upon any historical ground. If we are going to believe tradition once again, there were a number of short-lived dynasties coming and going, commencing with Parikṣit. In these centuries apparently a number of *Arthaśāstra* teachers and also schools sprang up in the land, and each teacher or follower of a certain school was pushing forward his or its own theory of the state and administration. Kauṭalya mentions twelve writers on polity who were all his predecessors. He could not afford to neglect them. He often refers to their views either to refute, or to accept them. Kauṭalya’s mission was, it would appear, to critically examine the floating theories on polity as befits the statesman at the helm of affairs of a great empire, and strike at some definite proposals conducive to the good government of the state, and yet in accordance with the traditions of the land.¹ The Narendra who was no other than Candragupta Maurya must have been pleased with the work, for something definite was presented to him to follow, and by following which he could have the supreme satisfaction of being able to administer the land on right lines.

c12.14

¹ See *J.I.H.*, IV, Pt. II, pp. 111-12: Meyer, *Kau. Artha. Einleitung*, pp. 23-24. *Contra* E. H. Johnston: *Studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya*, *J.R.A.S.*, Jan. 1929.

c12.15

² Kauṭilyena Narendrārthe Śāsanasya Vidhihkṛtaḥ

c12.16

¹ *In. Ant.* (1918), p. 55.

c12.17

(3) Another argument is that the contents of the *Arthaśāstra* do not justify the assumption that it is the work of a statesman but only of a Pandit.²

c12.18

² Jolly ed., Intro., p. 44.

c12.19

From the contents of the work it is unthinkable that the hand of the statesman is not present in it. Dr. Winternitz has taken pains to select one or two passages wherein Kauṭalya has loosely expressed his views, and on the strength of such slender basis, he dismisses the author as a mere Pandit.³ No one can deny for a moment that there are some places where Kauṭalya is not definite or assertive. It is probable that in these particulars he was not quite convinced of the prevailing opinions; still expediency might have dictated such a policy under certain circumstances. In such places he could have subordinated his opinion to that of the others. Apart from this construction any other cannot be placed on the so-called weak points in the treatise. But at the same time it is pertinent to remark that there is much truth in the statement that it is the work of a Pandit. And who is a Pandit? He who is deeply versed in a science or sciences is a Pandit. If Kauṭalya had not established his reputation as a great author on administrative science, *viz.*, statecraft, no one would seriously think of his work or attach any value to it. The king would not have ordered a layman to write for him a manual on statecraft.

c12.20

³ *Op. cit.*, p. 97.

c12.21

Further only the highly learned Pandits occupied superior positions in the government as ministers, councillors, judges, etc. If Kauṭalya had not been a Pandit he would have been unworthy to hold the Chancellorship of a new government which indeed involved serious responsibilities. The fact was that in ancient times the high class Pandits (the *śiṣṭas* and *viśiṣṭas* of the *Dharmaśāstra* literature) carried on the civil administration of the realm while the military administration was exercised by the Kṣatriya monarch. This does not mean that there was a cut and dried military or civil department which only this class or that class could monopolise. The departments were interdependent and by co-operation everything went on smoothly. Examples of Pandits who had been the soul of administration from both traditional and historical accounts are not wanting. There is the tradition of Vasiṣṭha, the Purohita of king Daśaratha. Here the king did not take the initiative in any affair without previous consultation with and advice of his Guru and friend Vasiṣṭha.

c12.22

In mediaeval times we know of Vidyāraṇya, the minister of the Vijayanagar emperor, Bukka. He was also known as Madhvācārya, the worthy brother of the worthy Sāyaṇa, the celebrated commentator of the Vedas. As there was another minister by name Mādhava we can appropriately call him Mādhava Vidyāraṇya.¹ This Vidyāraṇya was both a Pandit and statesman. The Bṛhat-Katha informs us that Kātyāyana, the famous jurist, was a minister of the Nanda kings. At a period so late as the 17th century we find a Pandit Govinda Dīkṣita as the minister of the Tanjore kings. These were Pandit-statesmen, or statesmen-pandits who have gloriously adorned many an enviable station in every Hindu state.

c12.23

¹ S. K. Aiyengar, Sources of Vijayanagar History, pp. 2-3.

c12.24

Under this category comes Kauṭalya. He was a Pandit of a rare order as also a keen statesman. If he were a mere Pandit he would not have cared for the opinions or the theories of his predecessors. He would give us a new work completely original wherein controversial theories would have been rigidly excluded. For example treatises on similar subjects like the Śukranītisāra or Bārhaspatyaśāstra do not at all discuss the opinions of their predecessors, much less contemporary views. Rarely do they mention even the names of such treatises. But by discussing other views with care and attention which they deserve, Kauṭalya shows himself more than a Pandit, and having been acquainted with the practical administration of the land we can call him a Pandit-statesman. If in a few places he has shown himself a Pandit, in many places he shows himself a statesman.

c12.25

There is no need to call attention to these special passages. But a reference may be made to a statement of Dr. Jolly himself who remarks that Kauṭalya must have been "an official in a state of medium size where he had obtained insight into the working of the administration."¹ This means that the German scholar is prepared to grant that Kauṭalya possessed an intimate or first hand knowledge as regards the different methods of working an administration. If it could be conceded that he was an official, it strengthens the position which we have taken that he was more than a mere Pandit. Tradition affirms that he was an official of much more importance, viz., the Chief Minister. No purpose is served by denying a fact, and the fact was that Kauṭalya was the Chancellor of Candragupta. E. H. Johnston remarks: "If it is wrong on the one hand to read into it (the *Arthaśāstra*) the ideas of a great statesman or a deep political thinker, on the other hand half its value is missed by treating it as the pedantic theorisings of a Pandit."² Later on³ Johnston shows how Kauṭalya is profoundly practical in his prescriptions. Suffice it to say here that statesmen in ancient India were generally from the Pandit's class though particular instances of statesmen from other classes are not lacking.

c12.26

¹ *Op. cit.*, p. 47.

c12.27

² *J.R.A.S.*, 1929, p. 89.

c12.28

³ Ibid., p. 101.

c12.29

(4) It is argued again that the discussions in the *Arthaśāstra* generally end by stating the author's opinion with the words: “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ . . .”⁴ We generally find this mention of the name of the teacher in texts emanating from schools, *e.g.*, Jaimini in the *Pūrvamīmāṃsa Sūtra*, Bādarāyaṇa in the *Vedānta Sūtra*, Baudhāyana in the *Baudhāyana-Dharmaśāstra*. But Patañjali does not state his opinion by saying “Iti Patañjali.” Much is made of the expressions “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ” and “neti Kauṭalyaḥ” which occur as many as 72 times in the work. To an ordinary Sanskrit Pandit in India the phrase connotes no special significance. It is always taken for granted that such works, where expressions like “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ,” “Iti Baudhāyanaḥ,” etc. occur, are the works ascribed to these authors. The attribution to schools will not find favour with an orthodox Pandit. One could not divine reasons for supposing that Jaimini’s *Pūrvamīmāṃsa Sūtra*, Bādarāyaṇa’s *Vedānta Sūtra* or Baudhāyana’s *Dharmasūtra* belong to schools and not to individual authors. Not that we do not accept any school as such. But it is more reasonable to assume that originally a certain Jaimini or Bādarāyaṇa flourished and propounded certain doctrines which were accepted and followed by their devoted disciples. To-day while one Hindu follows Āpastamba his neighbour follows Baudhāyana. This means that the former belongs to the Āpastamba school while the latter is of the Baudhāyana school.

c12.30

⁴ J.R.A.S., 1916, p. 131-33. See Keith, *History of Sans. Literature*, p. 458; Hillebrandt, *Uber das Kauṭ. studien*, p. 10. Also Hillebrandt, *uber die Aufauge de indischen dramas*, p. 17 (Munchen, 1914). contra Jacobi, *Ind. Ant.*, 1918, p. 157-f.

c12.31

What is the underlying idea? Originally when Āpastamba propounded his theory it appealed to certain members of the community. They followed them and then their descendants. Thus the school automatically came into being. But it may be asked, how could we explain the peculiar use of “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ,” “Iti Baudhāyanaḥ” in certain works, and its absence in other books like Patañjali’s *Mahābhāṣya*? The answer is simple. In India literature is broadly classified into two heads, the *sūtra* and the *bhāṣya*. The *sūtra* is an original work composed by master minds on a certain subject or subjects. It may be philosophy, theology, or any secular science. The *sūtras* (सूचनासूत्र) in themselves are a strenuous reading and especially so, when they deal with abstruse and technical sciences. It was not possible for all persons to grasp them. Hence interpreters came into being. Their works were *bhāṣyas* or interpretations of the *sūtras* in popular style. The *sūtrakāras* generally—there are also exceptions,—used the phrase “Iti Baudhāyanaḥ”, etc., meaning thereby that that was their final conclusion. On the other hand a *bhāṣyakāra* could not speak with such definiteness. For, oftentimes, more than one interpretation may be placed upon a certain phrase or passage. It depends to a large extent on the ingenuity of the writer. Some interpretations might be ingenious but could not win general approval. Therefore, the *bhāṣyakāras* are justified in omitting their names.

c12.32

In the light of this can we still maintain that *Iti Kauṭalyaḥ* is a serious argument against the authenticity of the work? We cannot follow Prof. Keith when he advances the argument that under the explanation of the term *apadeśa* in the last book of the *Arthaśāstra* is cited one of Kauṭalya’s sentences from which the *prima facie* conclusion is that Kauṭalya is cited as an authority and not as the author.¹ The passage is as follows:—

c12.33

¹ History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 459.

c12.34

sukha grahaṇavijñeyam tatvārtha padaniścitam|
Kauṭalyena kṛtam śāstram vimuktagranthavis-
taram||

c12.35

This science has been composed by Kauṭalya, easily understandable, correct in the exposition of truth and in the use of words, and all free from errors. J. J. Meyer in his translation of the *Arthaśāstra* furnishes a convincing reply.² Based as it is on old works ‘every sūtra having original opinion of the author necessarily became *apadeśa*’. It is a commonplace practice in India to give the author’s name in his works.³ Jacobi’s observations are to the point: “The agreement obtaining between the words of Kauṭalya and the character of his work, and the personality that characterises them would be difficult to understand, if those were not the very words of the author. A later writer who wanted to palm off his own lucubration of that of his school on the name of the famous statesman, would surely have faltered somewhere. From this view-point the higher criticism must acknowledge the authenticity of the Kauṭaliya.”⁴

c12.36

² P. 665, n.

c12.37

³ Hindu Polity, p. 211.

c12.38

⁴ Ind. Ant., 1918, p. 194.

c12.39

(5) ‘The very name Kauṭilya—never called Cāṇakya and only once Viṣṇugupta raises great doubts.’ For, Kauṭilya means ‘crookedness’, ‘falsehood’, etc. It is unlikely that a minister should style himself ‘Mr. Crooked’ or ‘Crookedness personified’.⁵

c12.40

⁵ Winternitz, op. cit., pp. 98 and 99.

c12.41

There has been a war of words about the name Kauṭalya. Some manuscripts contain the word Kauṭilya while others Kauṭalya. The *edito princeps* Śāma Śāstri and Jolly¹ used Kauṭilya, while the editor of the Trivandrum edition, Gaṇapati Śāstri used Kauṭalya. It is asked whether a minister would style himself Kauṭilya meaning "Mr. Crooked" or "Crookedness personified". Granting that it is Kauṭilya, such nicknames are not uncommon in ancient India. Mention may be made of a few; Vātavyādhi (the wind-diseased) is no other than Uddhava, a relative of Kṛṣṇa according to the Purāṇas. Piśuna (tale-bearer) is another name for the sage Nārada; this is also the name of the Brahman minister of king Duṣyanta according to Kālidāsa’s Śakuntalā. Kaunapadanta (the teeth of the Rākṣasas) is identified with Indra, the God of Heaven. When one minister can style himself as Piśuna, why not another as Kauṭilya? What we wish to point out for the sake of argument is that after all there is nothing in the name. To advance such feeble arguments with regard to the name of the author, demonstrates their weakness in all nakedness.

c12.42

¹ We hear to-day names like Stone, Fox, etc., in the western countries. Suppose there is a Lord Stone, or a Baron Fox referred to in literature, could a future generation ask a baron or noble style himself Stone and Fox?

c12.43

There is, however, another reading Kauṭalya which may be adopted with advantage and which may silence all controversy so far as this particular topic goes. Not only is there the authority of the manuscripts for this but also there is inscriptional evidence besides lexicographical. Gaṇapati Śāstri says that the term Kauṭilya is certainly a misnomer. For, neither the term Kauṭilya nor its root Kuṭila as explained in the Nighaṇ- tus as Gotrarṣi and crooked. On the other hand the word Kuṭala is mentioned by Keśavasvāmin in his Nānārthārṇavasamkṣepa as meaning both Gotrarṣi and an ornament.

c12.44

“अथस्यात् कुटलो गोलकृत्यषौ पुंसि नप् पुनः ।
विवादाभरणेऽथत्रि: कुटिलं कुश्चिते भवेत् ।
तगरेतुक्क़ी तगरपादिकायां स्त्रियामिति ॥”

c12.45

It is then obvious that the name is derived from the root Kuṭala. If it is granted that the patronymic is Kuṭala then we cannot grammatically derive Kauṭilya but only Kauṭalya.¹ Secondly, there is the testimony which bears to the fact that all the manuscripts of the text and the commentaries relating to the same invariably contain the expression Kauṭalya and not Kauṭilya. It is difficult to understand how Indian and European scholars have failed to notice this in handling the manuscripts when editing and publishing them. Apparently some have noted it but have not utilised it. For example in page 3 of Volume II of Jolly's edition (*Punjab Sanskrit Series*) it is mentioned thus: Title B. M. generally read: कौटलीयम् for कौटिलियम् and कौटलयः for कौटिल्यः. Evidently Jolly discarded the correct reading Kauṭalya. It may be that in his opinion it was a wrong reading.¹

c12.46

¹ In the Gotrapravaranibandhakadamba (Mysore Govt. Orient. Series, 1900, pp. 32 and 161) the term Kauṭalya occurs as a gotra name in two different places. The pravaras mentioned in the first reference are Bhārgava, Vitahavya and Savedasa, and the pravaras mentioned in the second reference are Gautama, Bhāradvāja and Aṅgirasa. Thus the pravaras for the two Kauṭalyas occurring in different places are different; and it is impossible to decide whether these two Kauṭalyas are one and the same person. If there is any force in the argument of the late Gaṇapati Śāstri and if from Kuṭala—not found mentioned in the Mysore publication and hence an insignificant gotra—the name Kauṭalya is to be traced, then we have to take that Viṣṇugupta must have been a putrikā-putra or dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa for whom, two gotras are generally mentioned, one that of his mother's father and the other that of his own father (Janaka-pita). If this position were granted, both Kuṭala and Vatsa must be his gotras. This will explain the identification of Kauṭalya and Vātsyāyana by the well-known nighaṇṭus like the Vaijayanti and Abhidhānacintāmani. These writers did not invent anything. Neither did they confound the one with the other as Haraprasad Śāstri would have it. They simply put into writing what was traditionally current in their times. Literary tradition, being one fruitful source of information for the early epoch of Indian History, cannot be easily discarded. There is much to say for the identification of the author of the Arthaśāstra with that of the Kāmasūtra.

c12.47

¹ J.I.H. IV, Pt. II, pp. 107-8, *Ar. śās.* (Trivandrum ed.) Vol. I, Intro.

c12.48

That Kauṭalya is the correct reading is attested to by another literary evidence. In the *Jayamangalā* commentary of the *Kāmandakanītisāra*, Śaṅkarārya the commentator remarks:

c12.49

कौटलय इति गोत्रनिबन्धना विष्णुगुप्तस्य संज्ञा ।

c12.50

It appears that Kauṭalya is the family name of Viṣṇugupta, the family name being derived from the patron saint or ṛṣi Kuṭala by the addition of derivative suffix 'yañ'.² Last but not the least is the invaluable inscriptional evidence supplied to us by D. B. Diskalkar. He writes: "I have found an inscription of V. S. 1291 (Vaiśākha Śudi 14 Guran) from the village Gaṇeṣar near Dholkā in Gujarat which in *l.* 9 clearly reads Kauṭalya. It records that Vastupāla, the famous Jain minister of the Vāghela king Viradhavala, who built a temple of Gaṇeśvara in V. S. 1291, was equal to Kauṭalya in statesmanship."³ This inscription is valuable to us in more than one respect. Not only does it show that the name Kauṭilya is the misspelling of the name Kauṭalya but also it bears witness to the fact that Kauṭalya is acknowledged to be a statesman and not a mere Pandit. It silences two important arguments in regard to the name of the author and the authenticity of the work. But it may be asked why the name Kauṭilya also sticks on in some Indian literature. Only one explanation can be offered and that is due to the ingenuity with which Viśākhadatta invested his character Kauṭalya in his famous play *Mudrārākṣasa*. For the purpose of his play he perhaps drew from his imagination a name which, being a twisting of the original name, answered his purpose well. Dramatic literature always being a popular branch of literature the wrong name might have caught the fancy of the masses and might have eventually become a bye-word for ‘crookedness’ or ‘crooked policy’.

c12.51

² See V. Venkatarama Sharma, *A Note on the word Kauṭalya*, *I.H.Q.*, I, pp. 569-70.

c12.52

³ Ibid., p. 786.

c12.53

Kauṭalya is known not by one or two names, but by a number of names. These are Vātsyāyana, Mallanāga, Kauṭalya, Cāṇakya, Dramila, Pakṣila, Svāmi, Viṣṇugupta, Aṅgula.¹ The *Vaijayantī* of Yādavaprakāśa (cir 1100 A.D.), a contemporary of Hemacandra, mentions Vārāṇaka and omits Cāṇakya.² The name Cāṇakya is unmistakably a patronymic, for, Hemacandra distinctly says: चणकात्मजः or son of Caṇaka. This falsifies the story contained in Viśākhadatta’s *Mudrārākṣasa*, namely, that the Nanda king imprisoned Kauṭalya who consequently had to take gram (*caṇaka*) for his food, and hence the name Cāṇakya.

c12.54

¹ *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi* of Hemacandra, 12th century.

c12.55

² *Bhūmikāṇḍa*, *Brahmanadhyaya*, verse 159, ed. by Oppert, p. 96 (1893) Madras.

c12.56

वात्स्यायने मल्हनागः कौटिल्यश्चणकात्मजः ।
द्रामिलः पक्षिलस्वामी विष्णुगुप्तोऽङ्गुलश्च सः ॥

c12.57

वात्स्यायनेस्तु कौटिल्यो विष्णुगुप्तो वराणकः ।
द्रामिलः पक्षिलस्वामी मल्हनागोऽङ्गुलऽपि च ॥

c12.58

This story is nothing but a product of the dramatist's imagination and is valuable so far as it shows the author's ingenuity.¹ The same value should be attached to the other interpretation of Viśākhadatta in regard to the name Kauṭilya:

c12.59

¹ See J.A.S.B., Vol. 52 (1838), R. L. Mitra's article especially p. 268. The reference that traces to a tradition from Bhaṭṭotpala's commentary to the Bṛhat-jātaka to the effect that Cāṇakya and Viṣṇugupta Kauṭalya were different persons, is not convincing. (J.R.A.S., 1929, p. 88.)

c12.60

कौटिल्य: कुटिलमति: स एष येन क्रोधाग्नौ प्रसभमदाहि नन्दवंश: ॥

c12.61

Because he had perverted and crooked views, people called him Kauṭilya though his name was really Kauṭalya. Even a Pandit of a lower order could not style himself 'Mr. Crooked,' speaking of himself *iti Kauṭalya* or *ne iti Kauṭalya* as many as 72 times in the text. To add to this is the fact that Kāmandaka speaks of him as 'वेधस्' a term of great respect generally used when speaking of sages. Kāmandaka adds that he belonged to an eminent family renowned for culture, a past master of all the four Vedas, who, by force of intelligence and skill, deposed the powerful

c12.62

वंशे विशालवंशानाम् ऋषीणामिव भूयसाम् ।
अप्रतिग्राहकाणां यो बभूव भुवि विश्रुत: ॥
जातवेदा इवाचिष्मान् वेदान् वेदविदां वर: ।
योऽधीतवान् सुचतुरश्चतुरोऽप्येकवेदवत् ।
यस्याभिचारवज्रेण वज्रज्वलनतेजस: ॥
पपातमूलता: श्रीमान् सुपर्वा नन्दपर्वत: ।
एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या य: शक्त्या शक्तिधरोपम: ॥
आजहार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुप्ताय मेदिनीम् ।
नीतिशास्त्रामृतं धीमान् अर्थशास्त्रमहोदधे: ॥
यमुह्य्रे नमस्तस्मै विष्णुगुप्ताय वेधसे ।
दर्शनात्तस्य सुदृशो विद्यानां पारह्रन: ।
राजविद्याप्रियतया संक्षिप्तग्रन्थमत्यवत् I, 2:8.

c12.63

Nanda king and crowned Candragupta, the moon among the people (नृचन्द्र), king. Kāmandaka does not stop there but concludes that section by saying that it was the same politician who was the author of the well-known *Arthaśāstra*, the very cream of political science.

c12.64

It is significant to note that Kauṭalya’s another name is Vātsyāyana. Vātsyāyana is the author of the extant *Kāmasūtra*.¹ There is another Vātsyāyana, the commentator of the *Nyāyasūtra* of Gautama. Both the Vātsyāyanas may be the same as Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar seems to think.² But the really interesting feature is the identification of Kauṭalya with Vātsyāyana.³ Kauṭalya’s reputation for versatile genius and all-round knowledge should be acknowledged on all hands. His aim, even according to the *Arthaśāstra*, was not mere policing of the state which would amount to the safeguarding of the security of life and property. It extended beyond and looked to the common good and welfare of the citizens at large. These are indeed the primary functions even of the modern state in spite of all our vaunted constitutional progress. This narrow outlook on politics did not appeal to a versatile mind like that of Kauṭalya. He wanted the state to rest on an economic foundation. In other words Kauṭalya devoted more to analysing a man’s aims in life and endeavouring how best to promote individual interests with those of the social group as a whole. His aim was the ultimate realisation by the people of the state of the four objects of human existence (*caturvarga*).

c12.65

¹ See H. C. Chakladar, *Studies* in the *Jour. of Dept. of Letters*, (Cal.) IV, pp. 85-122; *Modern Review*, March, 1928, p. 274; *Journal of the Mythic Society*, Vol. VI, pp. 210-16; *Ind. Ant.*, 1915, p. 82.

c12.66

² P. 90. *Aspects of Indian Polity*.

c12.67

³ Vātsyāyana is not a generic term but "is generally used as an individual personal name, a proper noun."—*J.A.S.B.*, Vol. LII, p. 267.

c12.68

If this were his policy, it may not be far wrong to state that he could have been the author of a Dharmaśāstra, Arthaśāstra, Kāmaśāstra, and Mokṣaśāstra as well. There is therefore some justification for the assumption that Kauṭalya was no other than Vātsyāyana, the author of the Kāmasūtra. The following coincidences endorse our statement:—

c12.69

(1) The style followed and the method adopted in the Kāmasūtra are exactly the same as are met with in the extant Arthaśāstra. (2) The style is didactic, midway between that of the sūtra and the bhāṣya. (3) The sections end invariably with verses in the manner of the Arthaśāstra.¹ Vātsyāyana like Kauṭalya seems to have composed aphorisms (sūtra) and comments (bhāṣya). (4) Both authors claim to base their teachings on experience or usage.² (5) Of the previous writers quoted by Kauṭalya, Gotamukha and Cārāyaṇa find mention in the Kāmasūtra. (6) Both refer to Vaiśika, apparently the work of Dattaka of Pāṭaliputra, written according to Jacobi, at the earliest in the second half of the 5th century B.C.³ (7) The aim of both seems to be the realisation of the three objects of human pursuit, dharma, artha and kāma. (8) The Kāmasūtra ends with a secret chapter as in the Arthaśāstra.⁴ (9) The morality of the Kāmasūtra is that of the Arthaśāstra “all is fair in love and war.”⁵ (10) As Kauṭalya often refers to an ācārya so also Vātsyāyana refers to an ācārya. (11) Both refer to a work of Parāśara as an authority.

c12.70

¹ Keith, Sans. Lit., p. 468; In. Ant., p. 192.

c12.71

² Prayoga, Aspects, p. 99.

c12.72

³ Ind. Ant., 1918, p. 189.

c12.73

⁴ Keith: op. cit., p. 467.

c12.74

⁵ Keith, Sans. Lit., p. 467.

c12.75

As against these remarkable coincidences, the differences are only few and far between. One mentioned by Jacobi is Vātsyāyana’s prescription of abstention from meat, and Kauṭalya’s rules regulating the sale of meat.¹ Even here the Arthaśāstra is a practical manual of administration and hence must formulate regulations of a comprehensive character. It does not mean a recommendation or acceptance of the principle. The Kāmasūtra discusses the question from an entirely different aspect.

c12.76

¹ Ind. Ant., 1918, p. 189 (note).

c12.77

It is indeed difficult to explain why Kauṭalya has been known by so many names. One explanation is that due to his popularity as well as his rare skill and policy, different people endowed him with different titles. Mallanāga is another name. It means Indra’s Elephant and this implies that he possessed the great energy and prowess of the Irāvada, the state elephant of the Lord of Heaven. This seems to fit in especially in view of the fact that Sakara, in the first Act of Mṛcchakaṭikā, who thinks too much of his valour, takes pride in comparing himself to Cāṇakya. It may be again that Malla is the name of a country² and perhaps Kauṭalya is a native of that Malla country. He was styled an elephant among the Mallas who were the people of the Malla country. If this interpretation be established Dramila may not mean a native of Dramila or Tamil country as is rendered by the Vācaspatya of Tāranātha. The view that Kauṭalya must have been a native of South India is gaining currency among the scholars.¹ J. J. Meyer, the latest writer on the subject, seems to favour this view² from the fact that Kauṭalya’s paṇa was of silver and was equal to 16 māṣa as against 20 in the Smṛtis. But R. L. Mitra speaks of a poet known as Dramila. He also explains the term Pakṣilasvāmi thus: “As a student of Nyāya his memory was strong that he could remember for a fortnight (pakṣa) a thesis once told him and hence the name.”³ That this interpretation is not impossible is seen from the fact that it is said of a much later writer by name Pakṣadhara Miśra. His other name was Aṅgula as is seen from the Nānārthārṇava Saṃkṣepa.⁴ Pakṣilasvāmi is a well-known name for the celebrated Vātsyāyana. R. L. Mitra suggests that the epithet shows that Kauṭalya became an ascetic-preceptor in the evening of his life. Or as the teacher of teachers he could have been regarded master by his successors who were authors of Nīti texts. For example, Kāmandaka calls him as his Ācārya. Daṇḍi calls him as Ācārya Viṣṇugupta.

c12.78

² Mallabhoom or the Malla country is identified with Bishnupur, modern Bankura being a portion of the ancient kingdom.

c12.79

¹ Jolly, Intro., pp. 43-44.

c12.80

² Einleitung, p. liv.

c12.81

³ J.B.A.S., 52 (1833), p. 268.

c12.82

⁴ T.S.S., 29, p. 53.

c12.83

To repeat the remark of Dr. Winternitz again “the very name Kauṭilya never called Cāṇakya and only once Viṣṇugupta raises great doubts.”⁵ There seems to be no necessity for a doubt for obvious reasons. It has been already shown that Kauṭilya with vowel ‘i’ in the middle is a misspelling and Kauṭalya with vowel ‘a’ is the right spelling. Viṣṇugupta is his own name perhaps given by

c12.84

⁵ See above, p. 310.

c12.85

अङ्गुलोऽस्त्री तिर्यग्गयवमाने पुमांस्तु सः ।
पक्षिलस्वामिसंज्ञार्णवङ्गुष्ठश्चथपादपे ॥

c12.86

his parents. And the name, according to Mitra, “is a fair index to the religion which his father professed.”¹ As a true Hindu he took a legitimate pride in his ancestry and styled himself after his far-famed ancestor Kuṭala ṛṣi. He could not be using different names of his in one and the same work. If it had been done it would give rise to grave doubts that different hands had been at the work. Probably to avoid such a mistake, towards the end of the book he made it clear that Kauṭalya of the extant book is the Viṣṇugupta of the family of Kuṭala. Excepting the name Viṣṇugupta, other names are the titles earned by him from the public and not taken by himself. It may, however, be asked that Cāṇakya is not a title and still he has not used it. It is the peculiar custom in India even in modern days to venerate the father and the teacher to the end of their lives. One mode of veneration is not to utter the name of either the father or even the teacher. It may amount to an insult if not to an offence. Kauṭalya was Cāṇakya because he was the son of his father Caṇaka. A man like Kauṭalya who had profound respect for orthodox tradition could not go against it. In the light of the above observation we are led to think that scholars will do justice to a name and a personality, the type of which is indeed rare in the history at least of the ancient world.

c12.87

¹ A.S.B., lii p. 268.

c12.88

(6) The Purāṇas or other literature never mention a single word about his authorship or writings.² This is not entirely true. References to his authorship are so many that by themselves it will make a thesis. We shall therefore rest content with merely mentioning the names of the literary works where unmistakable references are made to our celebrated writer on Polity.

c12.89

² Keith, Sans. Lit., p. 459.

c12.90

(i) That *Kāmandaki*¹ already quoted attaches a high value to his work on *rājanīti* identifying him at the same time with the minister of Candragupta.²

c12.91

¹ Probably 3rd century A.D. according to Jacobi, *Ind. Ant.* (1918), p. 159.

c12.92

² I, 2-8; cp. V, 2-8.

c12.93

(ii) The *Upādhyāyanirapekṣaṭikā* on the *Kāmandakinitisāra*³ designates the *Arthaśāstra* as *Kauṭalyabhāṣya*⁴; and what is more remarkable, it calls the author of the *Kāmasūtra*, *asmadguru*, identifying thus Vātsyāyana with Kauṭalya.

c12.94

³ *Bibl. Ind.*, New Series, No. 511, Fasc. V, pp. 136 and 138.

c12.95

⁴ *Ind. Ant.* (1918), p. 190.

c12.96

(iii) The *Tantrākhyāyika*, the oldest recension of the *Pañcatantra* has the following in the opening page of the book⁵:—

c12.97

⁵ H.O.S., XIV, p. 1.

c12.98

मनवे वाचस्पतये शुक्राय पराशराय समुताय ।
चाणक्याय च महते नमोऽस्तु नृपशास्त्रकर्तृरयः ॥

c12.99

(iv) The *Pañcatantra*, whose date is still a bone of contention, has significant references in more than one place to the work and the policy of Kauṭalya.

c12.100

(a)

c12.101

ततो धर्मशास्त्राणि मन्वादीन्यर्थशास्त्राणि
चाणक्यादीनि कामशास्त्राणि वात्स्यायनादीनि

c12.102

(b)

c12.103

कूटलेख्यैर्धनोत्सर्गैर्दुष्येच्छत्रुपक्षजम् ।
प्रधानपुरुषं यद्वद्विष्णुगुसेन राक्षसः ॥

c12.104

Here the author shows how he follows the principles of diplomacy enunciated by the master-politician. This verse is again instructive in the sense that it refers to Rākṣasa, a prominent character of the Mudrārākṣasa. Professor Tawney’s¹ view that the Mudrārākṣasa is anterior to the Pañcatantra seems to be the correct hypothesis.

c12.105

¹ J.R.A.S. (1908), p. 910.

c12.106

In the last book again the author of the Pañcatantra refers with approval to the unimpeachable policy of Cāṇakya. Says he:

c12.107

(c) बुद्धेर्बुद्धिमतां लोके नास्य गम्यं हि कंचन ।
बुद्ध्या यतो हता नन्दाश्चाणक्येनासिपाणयः ॥

c12.108

A repeated mention of the acceptance of the Kauṭalīyan policy is seen from the statement

c12.109

(d) सः औशनसार्हस्पत्यचाणक्यमतवित्तदनुष्ठाता ।

c12.110

(v) In the Mudrārākṣasa of Viśākhadatta (Act VII) Rākṣasa compliments Cāṇakya thus: —

c12.111

आकारः सर्वशास्त्राणां रत्नानामिव सागरः ।

c12.112

(vi) The Jātakamālā of Āryasūra, probably 4th century A.D. (for the work was translated into Chinese in A.D. 434) definitely refers to the Arthaśāstra.²

c12.113

² XXXI, 54; cp. IX, 55-64.

c12.114

नीतिकौटिल्यप्रसङ्ग

c12.115

(vii) The Laṅkāvatārasūtra probably 4th century A.D. of Āryasūra (this work was first translated into Chinese in A.D. 443, and again in A.D. 513, now with an appendix of 884 ślokas) mentions Kauṭalya as a ṛṣi.³ On this, Johnston, according to whom the lower limit of the Arthaśāstra is not later than A.D. 250, is obliged to make the following observation: “Evidently therefore at the end of the fifth century A.D. Kauṭalya was placed on a level with the ancient ṛṣis in point of age and the work which earned him this position must be at least several centuries earlier than that date.¹ Certainly the period from the third to the fifth century cannot be counted as ‘several centuries earlier’.

c12.116

³ See verse, 816.

c12.117

¹ J.R.A.S., 1929, p. 87.

c12.118

(viii) Daṇḍi regards Kauṭalya as the veritable master of the science of politics.²

c12.119

² Daśakumāracarita, Part II, ucc 1. 8.

c12.120

अधीष्व तावद्दण्डनीतिम्। इयम् इदानीमाचार्यविष्णु-
गुप्तेन मौर्यार्थे षड्भिः श्लोकसहस्रैः संक्षिता। सैवेय-
मधीत्य सम्यगनुष्ठीयमाना यथोक्तकार्यक्षमेति ॥

c12.121

A reference to the introduction of Shāma Sāstri’s translation of the Arthaśāstra (pp. x and xi, 2nd ed.) shows parallel passages from Daṇḍi.

c12.122

(ix) Bāṇa, the reputed author of the Harṣacarita and of the more celebrated romance Kādambari, refers to Kauṭalya’s work though he adversely criticises it. But what is to our point here is an authentic reference to his writings. Says Bāṇa:

c12.123

किं वा तेषां सांप्रतम्। येषामतिनृशंसप्रायोपदेशनिर्घृणं कौटिल्यशास्त्रं
प्रमाणं³ .... ....

c12.124

³ See also Kādambari, Vol. I, p. 109 (ed. by Peterson).

c12.125

(x) Somadevasūri in his Nitivākyāmṛta quotes often the very words of Kauṭalya and makes an explicit reference to the incidents connected with the Cāṇakya story. He notes especially Kauṭalya’s unquestioned help to Candragupta.

c12.126

(xi) There is again a reference to his work in the Jain *Nandi Sūtra* स्वमये अमश्चपुत्रे चाणके थूलबदेय though the Jain canonical writer treats his work as one among the false sciences.¹

c12.127

¹ N. C. Bandyopādhyaya, *Kauṭilya*, Part I, p. 3.

c12.128

(xii) Mallinātha (14th century) in his commentary on the *Raghuvamśa*² of Kālidāsa quotes the *Kauṭalīya*.³

c12.129

² IV, 35; VIII, 21 and XV, 29; XVII, 49, 55-6, 76 and 81; XVIII, 49.

c12.130

³ See also *Aspects of Polity*, p. 90.

c12.131

(xiii) Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita refers to it in his commentary on Aruṇācala’s gloss on the *Kumārasambhava* of Kālidāsa.⁴

c12.132

⁴ *Ibid.*, I.29; II.31.

c12.133

(xiv) Medhātithi (8th century A.D.) an earlier commentator on *Mānavadharmaśāstra* makes a reference in his gloss on VII, 43, to Kauṭalya as the desirable type of teachers.⁵

c12.134

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 96.

c12.135

(xv) Kṣīrasvāmin, an old commentator on *Amara Kośa* (about 11th century) in commenting on V, 21 (Canto 11) says⁶:

c12.136

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 97.

c12.137

यत्कौटिल्यः—उपधाभिः शौचाशौचज्ञानम् अमात्यानाम्

c12.138

(xvi) In his commentary on the sixty-four *kalas* of Vātsyāyana’s *Kāmasūtra*, Yaśodhara attributes the device of one variety to Kauṭalya.⁷

c12.139

⁷ *Mysore Ar. Dpt. An. Rep.*, 1927, p. 20.

c12.140

(xvii) Dinakara Miśra (1385 A.D.) a commentator on Kālidāsa’s *Raghuvamśa* quotes the *Kauṭalīya* in commenting on the verse 12 of Canto III.⁸ (*xviii*) Caritravardhana, another commentator older than Dinakara and quoted by the latter, refers to Kauṭalya in his gloss on the *Raghuvamśa*.¹

c12.141

⁸ See *Aspects of Polity*, p. 97.

c12.142

¹ III, 13; IV, 21; XVII, 56.

c12.143

(*xix*) Jīmūtavāhana’s *Vyavahāra-mayūka* (fourteenth century A.D.) has a quotation from the Kauṭalīya besides passages identical in substance.²

c12.144

² Published 1912, p. 174, p. 148, etc.

c12.145

(*xx*) The *Śivatatvaratnākara* (17th century A.D.) refers to Bṛhaspati, Śukra, and Cāṇakya, as authorities on Political Science.

c12.146

(7) Yet another argument is that the contents of the work itself deal with not only politics but a great many subjects under administration which require a knowledge of the specialists in architecture, in agriculture, in mining, in military organisation, etc. It is impossible that one man should have been a specialist in all the branches of knowledge. Against this it may be remarked at the outset that this is not impossible in India and especially in Ancient India where we know of the versatile knowledge possessed by many a Pandit in those days. They became sages and seers because of their knowledge in all branches of arts and sciences. The specialisation of education is a modern cry and the evils of such specialisation are patent enough. It makes the specialist devote all his time in his own subject oftentimes to the utter neglect of the other subjects. Specialisation may make one learned but not cultured. Ancient Indians took legitimate pride in their culture, nurtured it with great care and attention, and promoted its growth themselves being the custodians of that world-wide culture. For instance, Bhīṣma can speak with authority on any question submitted to him, whatever branch of science it might refer to. Vasiṣṭha the Purohita could assert with first-hand knowledge his opinion on any subject. Indeed the Purohita was Purohita because he was thoroughly versed in all branches of knowledge. For the conduct of sacrifices and rituals which belonged to his department he ought to have mastered the Saṃhitās; for propitiating rites and ceremonies he must have learnt the Atharva Veda; for fixing auspicious times, he had a full knowledge of the sciences of astronomy and astrology; for encouraging soldiers fighting in the field of battle, he taught himself the Dhanur Veda; to sit in judgment over the king's discussions and lead him in the right path, he was a veritable master of the Dharmaśāstras and the Arthaśāstras.

c12.147

Thus it was common in ancient India that he was deemed a śiṣṭa or a cultured person who had at his finger's end knowledge of all branches. There is nothing wonderful about this fact. Again the authors of law-books, epics and the Purāṇas must have been specialists in all branches of knowledge, for, they had to handle directly or indirectly all different arts and sciences. As for Kauṭalya there is a tradition that he must have been the author of a Dharmaśāstra, an Arthaśāstra, a Kāmaśāstra and a Mokṣaśāstra. If Vātsyāyana is a synonym for Kauṭalya, and if Cāṇakya be established an authority in astrology according to Bṛhat-Saṃhitā, and again if the commentator of the Nyāyasūtra be the same as the author of the Kāmasūtra, is it not incorrect to say that one cannot have a specialised knowledge in everything? Parāśara is quoted as an authority on the Arthaśāstra by Kauṭalya and on the *Kāmaśāstra* by Vātsyāyana; while the extant works by Parāśara are a *Dharmaśāstra* and another on astrology. These, then, would tend to show "that the schools of the age did not confine themselves to certain subjects only to the exclusion of others but attempted to deal comprehensively with all or most of the sciences or subjects of interest in the period."¹

c12.148

¹ *Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity*, p. 90.

c12.149

(8) The other argument is that Candragupta possessed a great empire and that what the *Arthaśāstra* postulates is only a small state of medium size. This simply means that the political horizon of the Kauṭalīyan world was narrow and limited to a state of medium size, and that Kauṭalya had no imperial outlook. This is again far from the truth.² The description of the *maṇḍala* or Circle of States and the policy of the states towards one another have been to a large extent responsible for this theory. Jayaswal conclusively shows the hollowness of this theory. He writes: "The supposition is contradicted by fact. Kauṭalya says that the Imperial tract (*Cakravarti-kṣetra*)³ lies between the Himālayas and the Ocean, ninety-two thousand *yojanas* in the straight line (as the crow flies). It is hardly possible to imagine a state without neighbours. A policy towards neighbours will have to be postulated by any statesman however large his empire may be. Then we know that there were a number of neighbours in the south who were reduced in the next reign, *i.e.*, Bindusāra. When Candragupta took the territories now called the N. W. Provinces from the Greeks it does not follow that he took the land without its rulers, republics generally, who were existing under the system of Alexander. The *Sanghavṛitta* lays down a policy towards the republics which it assumes to be under the king's sphere of influence, be they in (1) the Punjab, (2) Afghanistan (Kamboja), (3) Western India, or (4) North Bihar. There were therein parties in favour of the suzerain and parties against him. He was to sow the seed of dissension, patronise some, instal or depose one of the leaders. Now we know that in no other than the early Maurya time, Afghanistan, the Punjab, Western India, and North Bihar were at one and the same time under the sphere of one Indian king. The fact that Kauṭalya hardly tolerates sub-kings is one which is only compatible with the Mauryan times.¹ In addition to this it may be noted that in the fifteenth and the sixteenth chapters of the seventh *adhikaraṇa*, Kauṭalya lays down interstate, if not, international, relations which ought to exist between an emperor and his subjects or allied kings. A reading of these two chapters bears testimony to the prevailing imperial ideas which swayed the master-mind of Kauṭalya. He certainly enunciated an imperial policy as is seen from the laws prescribed on the treatment to be accorded to the conquered king by the conqueror.²

c12.150

² See above, pp. 74 and 76.

c12.151

³ Bk. IX, ch. 1.

c12.152

¹ *Hindu Polity*, Pt. I, p. 204.

c12.153

² See Law, *Interstate Relations in Ancient India*; S. V. Viswanatha, *International Law in Ancient India*.

Linked texts (34)