An Analysis Of Kautilya's 'Arthahastra'

3036 Words7 Pages

Abstract – In about 150 AD (the date is often disputed), Kautilya, also known as Chanakya and Vishnugupta, constructed the ‘Arthashastra’ and with its help proved to be the Kingmaker that he is recognized as today and established the Gupta dynasty. He is often regarded as ‘Arth’ meaning wealth, is one of the four aims of a Hindu life, ‘Kama’ (pleasure), ‘Dharm’ (duty) and ‘Moksh’ (salvation) being the other three. But it has a much wider interpretation of ‘Arth’ given by Kautilya through his ‘Arthashastra’. The material well-being of individuals is only a part of it. In this book, Kautilya mainly focuses on how an efficient kingdom shall run and what are the duties attached by each living entity involved in a kingdom. According to L.N. Rangarajan, …show more content…

He thought that the possession of might and joy makes a king greater hence a king should always attempt to increase his power. Kautilya though did not state this clearly but he did consider war an unavoidable compulsion. He also believed that it is the King’s duty to pursue substantial gain, divine good and pleasures. Kautilya thinks that for a King to achieve the given goals, he must generate wealth, build armies and should conquer the near kingdoms and expand the size of his kingdom. He believes that the strength of a kingdom lies in its military prowess and economic might. Kautilya suggested three types of war: “Open war, Concealed war and the Silent War”. Open war was what he describes as the war which is openly declared between rival states, concealed war as one which is similar to guerrilla war and Silent war which is fought on a continued basis inside the kingdom so that the power of the King does not get …show more content…

He suggests that it is an essential duty of the government to ensure law and justice in a state. His ultimate source of deriving law is ‘Dharma’. Kautilyan legal system was not much different than the judiciary which exists today. He too had judges, which he called ‘Dharmastha’ and magistrates which he called ‘Pradeshtr’. The difference between the two was that the former was concerned with crimes against the society while the latter was concerned with transaction between two parties. Whenever there was a conflict between custom and ‘Dharmashastra’ or between evidences and ‘Shastras’, the matter should be decided in accord with the ‘Dharma’. The Judges and Magistrates also had to be qualified for their positions in the court. A Judge must be thorough in Dharma and have the qualifications equivalent to that of a minister. A Judge shall be fair and impartial in order to gain the trust of the population into the legal system of the state. There should be a bench of 3 judges who shall hold court at frontier posts, sub – district headquarters, and provincial

Open Document