The Mauryan Polity c12.86

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.