The Mauryan Polity c12.19

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.