Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c3.37

c3.37

Nor do Kāmandaka’s references to Kauṭilya’s work prove it to be the production of a school, as may be easily assumed; for Kāmandaka’s mention of Viṣṇu Gupta, *i.e.* Kauṭilya, as his *guru* cannot be interpreted in the literal sense of the term so as to point to the origin of the *Arthaśāstra* in a school. This is clear from the character of the *Nītisāra* as well as from its contents. It is professedly an abridgment [“संक्षिप्त ग्रन्थ”] of the comprehensive work traced to Kauṭilya, which, though its principal source, is not, however, its only source, and is not also blindly followed. Kāmandaka is not a one-sided follower of his master; he refers to the opinions of other राजविद्याविदः besides the authority of Kauṭilya; and there are points of agreement¹ as well as difference² between the two. Besides, Kāmandaka presents only a small part of the *Arthaśāstra* and omits those very subjects which have a bearing on actual administration and which give so much value to Kauṭilya’s work; for instance, such subjects as administration, control of trade and professions, justice, etc., as also universal maxims of government. The fact of the matter was that Kāmandaka was no practical statesman, but a Pandit fond of disputation and showing off political wisdom; and the use that he has made of Kauṭilya’s work only strengthens our conviction that the work is not scholastically delivered tradition but bears the stamp of an individual author and his times.