Hubbry Logo
ChanakyaChanakyaMain
Open search
Chanakya
Community hub
Chanakya
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chanakya
Chanakya
Chanakya
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Chanakya (ISO: Cāṇakya, चाणक्य, pronunciationⓘ), according to legendary narratives[a] preserved in various traditions dating from the 4th to 11th century CE, was a Brahmin who assisted the first Mauryan emperor Chandragupta in his rise to power and the establishment of the Maurya Empire. According to these narratives, Chanakya served as the chief adviser and prime minister to both emperors Chandragupta Maurya and his son Bindusara.[3]

Key Information

Conventionally, Chanakya was identified with Kauṭilya and synonymously Vishnugupta, the author of the ancient Indian politico-economic treatise Arthashastra.[4] Arthashastra is now thought with high probability to have been composed by multiple authors during the early centuries of the common era—several centuries after the Mauryan period—the backdated identification with Chanakya to have served to add prestige to the work.[5][6][b]

Chanakya-Chandragupta katha (legend)

[edit]
Dhana Nanda's empire, c. 323 BCE

There is no documented historical information about Chanakya: narratives about him come from legendary accounts.[a] Thomas Trautmann identifies four distinct accounts of the ancient Chanakya-Chandragupta katha (legend):[7]

  • Buddhist version: Mahavamsa (5th-6th cent. CE) and its commentary Vamsatthappakasini (Pali language)
  • Jain version: Parishishtaparvan (12th cent. CE) by Hemachandra, based on 1st-8th century sources
  • Kashmiri version: Kathasaritsagara (11th cent. CE) by Somadeva, Brihat-Katha-Manjari by Ksemendra
  • Vishakhadatta's version: Mudrarakshasa (4th-8th cent. CE) , a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta; largely fictional[8]

In all the four versions, Chanakya feels insulted by the Nanda king, and vows to destroy him. After dethroning the Nanda, he installs Chandragupta as the new king.

Buddhist version (5th-6th cent. CE)

[edit]

Source

[edit]

The legend of Chanakya and Chandragupta is detailed in the Pali-language Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka. It is not mentioned in Dipavamsa, the oldest of these chronicles.[9] The earliest Buddhist source to mention the legend is Mahavamsa, which is generally dated between fifth and sixth centuries CE. Vamsatthappakasini (also known as Mahvamsa Tika), a commentary on Mahavamsa, provides some more details about the legend. Its author is unknown, and it is dated variously from sixth century CE to 13th century CE.[10] Some other texts provide additional details about the legend; for example, the Maha-Bodhi-Vamsa and the Atthakatha give the names of the nine Nanda kings said to have preceded Chandragupta.[9][11]

Narrative

[edit]

According to the Buddhist legend, the Nanda emperors who preceded Chandragupta were robbers-turned-rulers.[9] Chanakya (IAST: Cāṇakka in Mahavamsa) was a Brahmin from Takkāsila (Takshashila). He was well-versed in three Vedas and politics. He was born with canine teeth, which were believed to be a mark of royalty. His mother feared that he would neglect her after becoming an emperor.[2] To pacify her, Chanakya broke his teeth.[12]

Chanakya had an ugly appearance, accentuated by his broken teeth and crooked feet. One day, the Emperor Dhana Nanda organized an alms-giving ceremony for Brahmins. Chanakya went to Pupphapura (Pushpapura) to attend this ceremony. Disgusted by his appearance, the emperor ordered him to be thrown out of the assembly. Chanakya broke his sacred thread in anger, and cursed the emperor. The emperor ordered his arrest, but Chanakya escaped in the disguise of an Ājīvika. He befriended Dhananada's son Pabbata, and instigated him to seize the throne. With help of a signet ring given by the prince, Chanakya fled the palace through a secret door.[12]

Chanakya escaped to the Vinjha forest. There, he made 800 million gold coins (kahapanas), using a secret technique that allowed him to turn 1 coin into 8 coins. After hiding this money, he started searching for a person worthy of replacing Dhana Nanda.[12] One day, he saw a group of children playing: the young Chandragupta (called Chandagutta in Mahavamsa) played the role of an emperor, while other boys pretended to be vassals, ministers, or robbers. The "robbers" were brought before Chandragupta, who ordered their limbs to be cut off, but then miraculously re-attached them. Chandragupta had been born in a royal family, but was brought up by a hunter after his father was killed by an usurper, and the devatas caused his mother to abandon him. Astonished by the boy's miraculous powers, Chanakya paid 1000 gold coins to his foster-father, and took Chandragupta away, promising to teach him a trade.[13]

Chanakya had two potential successors to Dhana Nanda: Pabbata and Chandragupta. He gave each of them an amulet to be worn around the neck with a woolen thread. One day, he decided to test them. While Chandragupta was asleep, he asked Pabbata to remove Chandragupta's woolen thread without breaking it and without waking up Chandragupta. Pabbata failed to accomplish this task. Some time later, when Pabbata was sleeping, Chanakya challenged Chandragupta to complete the same task. Chandragupta retrieved the woolen thread by cutting off Pabbata's head. For the next seven years, Chanakya trained Chandragupta for imperial duties. When Chandragupta became an adult, Chanakya dug up his hidden treasure of gold coins, and assembled an army.[13]

The army of Chanadragupta and Chanakya invaded Dhana Nanda's empire, but disbanded after facing a severe defeat. While wandering in disguise, the two men once listened to the conversation between a woman and her son. The child had eaten the middle of a cake, and thrown away the edges. The woman scolded him, saying that he was eating food like Chandragupta, who attacked the central part of the empire instead of conquering the border villages first. Chanakya and Chandragupta realized their mistake. They assembled a new army, and started conquering the border villages. Gradually, they advanced to the empire's capital Pataliputra (Pāṭaliputta in Mahavamsa), where they killed the Emperor Dhana Nanda. Chanakya ordered a fisherman to find the place where Dhana Nanda had hidden his treasure. As soon as the fishermen informed Chanakya about its location, Chanakya had him killed. Chanakya anointed Chandragupta as the new emperor, and tasked a man named Paṇiyatappa with eliminating rebels and robbers from the empire.[14]

Chanakya started mixing small doses of poison in the new emperor's food to make him immune to poisoning attempts by the enemies. Chandragupta, who was not aware of this, once shared the food with his pregnant empress Durdhara, who was seven days away from delivery. Chanakya arrived just as the empress ate the poisoned morsel. Realizing that she was going to die, Chanakya decided to save the unborn child. He cut off the empress's head and cut open her belly with a sword to take out the foetus. Over the next seven days, he placed the foetus in the belly of a goat freshly killed each day. After seven days, Chandragupta's son was "born". He was named Bindusara because his body was spotted with drops (bindu) of goat's blood.[14]

The earliest Buddhist legends do not mention Chanakya in their description of the Mauryan dynasty after this point.[13] Dhammapala's commentary on Theragatha, however, mentions a legend about Chanakya and a Brahmin named Subandhu. According to this account, Chanakya was afraid that the wise Subandhu would surpass him at Chandragupta's court. So, he got Chandragupta to imprison Subandhu, whose son Tekicchakani escaped and became a Buddhist monk.[15] The 16th-century Tibetan Buddhist author Taranatha mentions Chanakya as one of Bindusara's "great lords". According to him, Chanakya destroyed the nobles and kings of 16 towns and made Bindusara the master of all the territory between the eastern and the western seas (Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal).[16]

Jain version (12th cent. CE, based on 1st-8th cent. CE sources)

[edit]

Source

[edit]

The Chandragupta-Chanakya legend is mentioned in several commentaries of the Shvetambara canon. The most well-known version of the Jain legend is contained in the Sthaviravali-Charita or Parishishta-Parvan, written by the 12th-century writer Hemachandra.[1] Hemachandra's account is based on the Prakrit kathanaka literature (legends and anecdotes) composed between the late first century CE and mid-8th century CE. These legends are contained in the commentaries (churnis and tikas) on canonical texts such as Uttaradhyayana and Avashyaka Niryukti.[17]

Thomas Trautmann believes that the Jain version is older and more consistent than the Buddhist version of the legend.[17]

Narrative

[edit]

According to the Jain account, Chanakya was born to two lay Jains (shravaka) named Chanin and Chaneshvari. His birthplace was the Chanaka village in Golla vishaya (district).[1] The identity of "Golla" is not certain, but Hemachandra states that Chanakya was a Dramila, implying that he was a native of South India.[18]

Chanakya was born with a full set of teeth. According to the monks, this was a sign that he would become a king in the future. Chanin did not want his son to become haughty, so he broke Chanakya's teeth. The monks prophesied that the baby would go on to become a power behind the throne.[1] Chanakya grew up to be a learned shravaka, and married a Brahmin woman. Her relatives mocked her for being married to a poor man. This motivated Chanakya to visit Pataliputra, and seek donations from the Emperor Nanda, who was famous for his generosity towards Brahmins. While waiting for the emperor at the imperial court, Chanakya sat on the emperor's throne. A dasi (slave woman) courteously offered Chanakya the next seat, but Chanakya kept his kamandal (water pot) on it, while remaining seated on the throne. The servant offered him a choice of four more seats, but each time, he kept his various items on the seats, refusing to budge from the throne. Finally, the annoyed servant kicked him off the throne. Enraged, Chanakya vowed to uproot Nanda and his entire establishment, like "a great wind uproots a tree".[19]

Chanakya knew that he was prophesied to become a power behind the throne. So, he started searching for a person worthy of being a king. While wandering, he did a favour for the pregnant daughter of a village chief, on the condition that her child would belong to him. Chandragupta was born to this lady. When Chandragupta grew up, Chanakya came to his village and saw him playing "king" among a group of boys. To test him, Chanakya asked him for a donation. The boy told Chanakya to take the cows nearby, declaring that nobody would disobey his order. This display of power convinced Chanakya that Chandragupta was the one worthy of being a king.[1]

Chanakya took Chandragupta to conquer Pataliputra, the capital of Nanda. He assembled an army using the wealth he had acquired through alchemy (dhatuvada-visaradan). The army suffered a severe defeat, forcing Chanakya and Chandragupta to flee the battlefield. They reached a lake while being pursued by an enemy officer. Chanakya asked Chandragupta to jump into the lake, and disguised himself as a meditating ascetic. When the enemy soldier reached the lake, he asked the 'ascetic' if he had seen Chandragupta. Chanakya pointed at the lake. As the soldier removed his armour to jump into the lake, Chanakya took his sword and killed him. When Chandragupta came out of the water, Chanakya asked him, "What went through your mind, when I disclosed your location to the enemy?" Chandragupta replied that he trusted his master to make the best decision. This convinced Chanakya that Chandragupta would remain under his influence even after becoming the king. On another occasion, Chanakya similarly escaped the enemy by chasing away a washerman, and disguising himself as one. Once, he cut open the belly of a Brahmin who had just eaten food, and took out the food to feed a hungry Chandragupta.[20]

One day, Chanakya and Chandragupta overheard a woman scolding her son. The child had burnt his finger by putting it in the middle of a bowl of hot gruel. The woman told her son that by not starting from the cooler edges, he was being foolish like Chanakya, who attacked the capital before conquering the bordering regions. Chanakya realized his mistake, and made a new plan to defeat Nanda. He formed an alliance with Parvataka, the king of a mountain kingdom called Himavatkuta, offering him half of Nanda's empire.[20]

After securing Parvataka's help, Chanakya and Chandragupta started besieging the cities other than Pataliputra. One particular city offered a strong resistance. Chanakya entered this city disguised as a Shaivite mendicant, and declared that the siege would end if the idols of the seven mothers were removed from the town's temple. As soon as the superstitious defenders removed the idols from the temple, Chanakya ordered his army to end the siege. When the defenders started celebrating their victory, Chanakya's army launched a surprise attack and captured the town.[20]

Gradually, Chanakya and Chandragupta subdued all the regions outside the capital. Finally, they captured Pataliputra and Chandragupta became the emperor. They allowed the Emperor Nanda to go into exile, with all the goods he could take on a cart. As Nanda and his family were leaving the city on a cart, his daughter saw Chandragupta, and fell in love with the new emperor. She chose him as her husband by svayamvara tradition. As she was getting off the cart, 9 spokes of the cart's wheel broke. Interpreting this as an omen, Chanakya declared that Chandragupta's dynasty would last for 9 generations.[20]

Meanwhile, Parvataka fell in love with one of Nanda's visha kanyas (poison girl, assassin). Chanakya approved the marriage, and Parvataka collapsed when he touched the girl during the wedding. Chanakya asked Chandragupta not to call a physician. Thus, Parvataka died and Chandragupta became the sole ruler of Nanda's territories.[21]

Chanakya then started consolidating the power by eliminating Nanda's loyalists, who had been harassing people in various parts of the empire. Chanakya learned about a weaver who would burn any part of his house infested with cockroaches. Chanakya assigned the responsibility of crushing the rebels to this weaver. Soon, the empire was free of insurgents. Chanakya also burned a village that had refused him food in the past. He filled the imperial treasury by inviting rich merchants to his home, getting them drunk and gambling with a loaded dice.[21]

Once, the empire suffered a 12-year long famine. Two young Jain monks started eating from the emperor's plate, after making themselves invisible with a magic ointment. Chanakya sensed their presence by covering the palace floor with a powder, and tracing their footprints. At the next meal, he caught them by filling the dining room with thick smoke, which caused the monks' eyes to water, washing off the ointment. Chanakya complained about the young monks' behavior to the head monk Acharya Susthita. The Acharya blamed people for not being charitable towards monks, so Chanakya started giving generous alms to the monks.[21]

Meanwhile, Chandragupta had been patronizing the non-Jain monks. Chanakya decided to prove to him that these men were not worthy of his patronage. He covered the floor of the palace area near the women's rooms with powder and left the non-Jain monks there. Their footprints showed that they had sneaked up to the windows of the women's rooms to peep inside. The Jain monks, who were assessed using the same method, stayed away from the women's rooms. After seeing this, Chandragupta appointed the Jain monks as his spiritual counsellors.[22]

Chanakya used to mix small doses of poison in Chandragupta's food to make him immune to poisoning attempts. The emperor, unaware of this, once shared his food with Empress Durdhara. Chanakya entered the room at the instant she died. He cut open the dead empress's belly and took out the baby. The baby, who had been touched by a drop ("bindu") of the poison, was named Bindusara.[22]

After Chandragupta abdicated the throne to become a Jain monk, Chanakya appointed Bindusara as the new emperor.[22] Chanakya asked Bindusara to appoint a man named Subandhu as one of his ministers. However, Subandhu wanted to become a higher minister and grew jealous of Chanakya. So, he told Bindusara that Chanakya was responsible for the death of his mother. Bindusara confirmed the allegations with the nurses, who told him that Chanakya had cut open the belly of his mother. Bindusara became enraged, and started hating Chanakya. As a result, Chanakya, who had grown very old by this time, retired and decided to starve himself to death. Meanwhile, Bindusara learned the detailed circumstances of his birth, and implored Chanakya to resume his ministerial duties. After failing to pacify Chanakya, the emperor ordered Subandhu to convince Chanakya to give up his suicide plan. Subandhu, while pretending to appease Chanakya, burned him to death. Subandhu then took possession of Chanakya's home. Chanakya had anticipated this, and before retiring, he had set up a cursed trap for Subandhu. He had left behind a chest with a hundred locks. Subandhu broke the locks, hoping to find precious jewels. He found a sweet-smelling perfume and immediately inhaled it. But then his eyes fell on a birch bark note with a curse written on it. The note declared that anybody who smelled this perfume will have to either become a monk or face death. Subandhu tested the perfume on another man, and then fed him luxurious food (something that the monks abstain from). The man died, and then Subandhu was forced to become a monk to avoid death.[23][24]

According to another Jain text – the Rajavali-Katha – Chanakya accompanied Chandragupta to forest for retirement, once Bindusara became the emperor.[25]

Kashmiri version (11th cent. CE)

[edit]

Source

[edit]

Brihatkatha-Manjari by Kshemendra and Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva are two 11th-century Kashmiri Sanskrit collections of legends. Both are based on a now-lost Prakrit-language Brihatkatha-Sarit-Sagara, which was based on the now-lost Paishachi-language Brihatkatha (before 3rd cent. CE) by Gunadhya. The Chanakya-Chandragupta legend in these collections features another character, named Shakatala (IAST: Śakaṭāla).[26]

Kashmiri narrative

[edit]

The Kashmiri version of the legend goes like this: Vararuchi (identified with Katyayana), Indradatta and Vyadi were three disciples of the sage Varsha. Once, on behalf of their guru Varsha, they travelled to Ayodhya to seek a gurudakshina (guru's fee) from Emperor Nanda. As they arrived to meet Nanda, the emperor died. Using his yogic powers, Indradatta entered Nanda's body and granted Vararuchi's request for 10 million gold dinars (gold coins). The imperial minister Shakatala realized what was happening, and had Indradatta's body burnt. But before he could take any action against the fake emperor (Indradatta in Nanda's body, also called Yogananda), the emperor had him arrested. Shakatala and his 100 sons were imprisoned and were given food sufficient only for one person. Shakatala's 100 sons starved to death, so that their father could live to take revenge.[27]

Meanwhile, the fake emperor appointed Vararuchi as his minister. As the emperor's character kept deteriorating, a disgusted Vararuchi retired to a forest as an ascetic. Shakatala was then restored as the minister, but kept planning his revenge. One day, Shakatala came across Chanakya, a Brahmin who was uprooting all the grass in his path, because one blade of the grass had pricked his foot. Shakatala realized that he could use a man so vengeful to destroy the fake emperor. He invited Chanakya to the emperor's assembly, promising him 100,000 gold coins for presiding over a ritual ceremony.[27]

Shakatala hosted Chanakya in his own house and treated him with great respect. But the day Chanakya arrived at the imperial court, Shakatala got another Brahmin named Subandhu to preside over the ceremony. Chanakya felt insulted, but Shakatala blamed the emperor for this dishonour. Chanakya then untied his topknot (sikha), and vowed not to re-tie it until the emperor was destroyed. The emperor ordered his arrest, but he escaped to Shakatala's house. There, using materials supplied by Shakatala, he performed a magic ritual which made the emperor sick. The king died of a fever after 7 days.[28]

Shakatala then executed Hiranyagupta, the son of the fake emperor. He anointed Chandragupta, the son of the real emperor Nanda, as the new emperor (in Kshemendra's version, it is Chanakya who installs Chandragupta as the new emperor). Shakatala also appointed Chanakya as the imperial priest (rajpurohita). Having achieved his revenge, he then retired to the forest as an ascetic.[28]

Mudrarakshasa version (4th-8th cent. CE)

[edit]

Source

[edit]

Mudrarakshasa ("The signet ring of Rakshasa") is a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta. Its date is uncertain, but it mentions the Huna, who invaded northern India during the Gupta period. Therefore, it could not have been composed before the Gupta era.[29] It is dated variously from the late fourth century[30] to the eighth century.[31] The Mudrarakshasa legend contains narratives not found in other versions of the Chanakya-Chandragupta legend. Because of this difference, Trautmann suggests that most of it is fictional or legendary, without any historical basis.[8]

Mudrarakshasa narrative (4th-8th cent. CE)

[edit]

According to the Mudrarakshasa version, the Emperor Nanda once removed Chanakya from the "first seat of the empire" (this possibly refers to Chanakya's expulsion from the emperor's assembly). For this reason, Chanakya vowed not to tie his top knot (shikha) until the complete destruction of Nanda. Chanakya made a plan to dethrone Nanda, and replace him with Chandragupta, his son by a lesser empress. Chanakya engineered Chandragupta's alliance with another powerful king Parvateshvara (or Parvata), and the two rulers agreed to divide Nanda's territory after subjugating him. Their allied army included Bahlika, Kirata, Parasika, Kamboja, Shaka, and Yavana soldiers. The army invaded Pataliputra (Kusumapura) and defeated the Nandas.[32] Parvata is identified with King Porus by some scholars.[33]

Nanda's prime minister Rakshasa escaped Pataliputra, and continued resisting the invaders. He sent a vishakanya (poison girl) to assassinate Chandragupta. Chanakya had this girl assassinate Parvata instead, with the blame going to Rakshasa. However, Parvata's son Malayaketu learned the truth about his father's death and defected to Rakshasa's camp. Chanakya's spy Bhagurayana accompanied Malayaketu, pretending to be his friend.[34]

Rakshasa continued to plot Chandragupta's death, but all his plans were foiled by Chanakya. For example, once Rakshasa arranged for assassins to be transported to Chandragupta's bedroom via a tunnel. Chanakya became aware of them by noticing a trail of ants carrying the leftovers of their food. He then arranged for the assassins to be burned to death.[35]

Meanwhile, Parvata's brother Vairodhaka became the ruler of his emperor. Chanakya convinced him that Rakshasa was responsible for killing his brother, and agreed to share half of Nanda's emperor with him. Secretly, however, Chanakya hatched a plan to get Vairodhaka killed. He knew that the chief architect of Pataliputra was a Rakshasa loyalist. He asked this architect to build a triumphal arch for Chandragupta's procession to the imperial palace. He arranged the procession to be held at midnight citing astrological reasons, but actually to ensure poor visibility. He then invited Vairodhaka to lead the procession on Chandragupta's elephant, and accompanied by Chandragupta's bodyguards. As expected, Rakshasa's loyalists arranged for the arch to fall on who they thought was Chandragupta. Vairodhaka was killed, and once again, the assassination was blamed on Rakshasa.[34]

Malayaketu and Rakshasa then formed an alliance with five kings: Chiravarman of Kauluta (Kulu), Meghaksha of Parasika, Narasimha of Malaya, Pushkaraksha of Kashmira, and Sindhusena of Saindhava. This allied army also included soldiers from Chedi, Gandhara, Hunas, Khasa, Magadha, Shaka, and Yavana territories.[35]

In Pataliputra, Chanakya's agent informed him that three Rakshasa loyalists remained in the capital: the Jain monk Jiva-siddhi, the scribe Shakata-dasa and the jewellers' guild chief Chandana-dasa. Of these, Jiva-siddhi was actually a spy of Chanakya, unknown to his other spies. Chandana-dasa sheltered Rakshasa's wife, who once unknowingly dropped her husband's signet-ring (mudra). Chanakya's agent got hold of this signet-ring, and brought it to Chanakya. Using this signet ring, Chanakya sent a letter to Malayaketu warning him that his allies were treacherous. Chanakya also asked some of Chandragupta's princes to fake defection to Malayaketu's camp. In addition, Chanakya ordered Shakata-dasa's murder, but had him 'rescued' by Siddharthaka, a spy pretending to be an agent of Chandana-dasa. Chanakya's spy then took Shakata-dasa to Rakshasa.[35]

When Shakata-dasa and his 'rescuer' Siddharthaka reached Rakshasa, Siddharthaka presented him the signet-ring, claiming to have found it at Chandana-dasa's home. As a reward, Rakshasa gave him some jewels that Malayaketu had gifted him. Sometime after this, another of Chanakya's agents, disguised as a jeweller, sold Parvata's jewels to Rakshasa.[36]

Sometime later, Rakshasa sent his spies disguised as musicians to Chandragupta's court. But Chanakya knew all about Rakshasa's plans thanks to his spies. In front of Rakshasa's spies, Chanakya and Chandragupta feigned an angry argument. Chandragupta pretended to dismiss Chanakya, and declared that Rakshasa would make a better minister. Meanwhile, Malayaketu had a conversation with Chanakya's spy Bhagurayana while approaching Rakshasa's house. Bhagurayana made Malayaketu distrustful of Rakshasa, by saying that Rakshasa hated only Chanakya, and would be willing to serve Nanda's son Chandragupta. Shortly after this, a messenger came to Rakshasa's house and informed him that Chandragupta had dismissed Chanakya while praising him. This convinced Malayaketu that Rakashasa could not be trusted.[36]

Malayaketu then decided to invade Pataliputra without Rakshasa by his side. He consulted the Jain monk Jiva-siddhi to decide an auspicious time for beginning the march. Jiva-siddhi, a spy of Chanakya, told him that he could start immediately.[36] Jiva-siddhi also convinced him that Rakshasa was responsible for his father's death, but Bhagurayana persuaded him not to harm Rakshasa. Shortly after, Chanakya's spy Siddharthaka pretended to get caught with a fake letter addressed to Chandragupta by Rakshasa. Wearing the jewels given by Rakshasa, he pretended to be an agent of Rakshasa. The letter, sealed with Rakshasa's signet-ring, informed Chandragupta that Rakshasa only wished to replace Chanakya as the prime minister. It also stated that five of Malayaketu's allies were willing to defect to Chandragupta in return for land and wealth. An angry Malayaketu summoned Rakshasa, who arrived wearing Parvata's jewels that Chanakya's agent had sold him. When Malayaketu saw Rakshasa wearing his father's jewels, he was convinced that there was indeed a treacherous plan against him. He executed his five allies in a brutal manner.[37]

The rest of Malayaketu's allies deserted him, disgusted at his treatment of the five slayed allies. Rakshasa managed to escape, tracked by Chanakya's spies. One of Chanakya's spies, disguised as a friend of Chandana-dasa, got in touch with him. He told Rakshasa that Chandana-dasa was about to be executed for refusing to divulge the location of Rakshasa's family. On hearing this, Rakshasa rushed to Pataliputra to surrender and save the life of his loyal friend Chandana-dasa. When he reached Pataliputra, Chanakya, pleased with his loyalty to Chandana-dasa, offered him clemency. Rakshasa pledged allegiance to Chandragupta and agreed to be his prime minister, in return for release of Chandana-dasa and a pardon for Malayaketu. Chanakya then bound his top knot, having achieved his objective, and retired.[37]

Legacy

[edit]
See also: Category:Works about Chanakya

Chanakya is regarded as a great thinker and diplomat in India. Many Indian nationalists regard him as one of the earliest people who envisioned a united India spanning the entire subcontinent. India's former National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon praised Chanakya's Arthashastra for its precise and timeless descriptions of power. Furthermore, he recommended reading of the book for broadening the vision on strategic issues.[38]

Identification with Kautilya, author of the Arthashastra

[edit]
See also: Authorship of the Athashastra

Arthashastra is serious manual on statecraft, on how to run a state, informed by a higher purpose, clear and precise in its prescriptions, the result of practical experience of running a state. It is not just a normative text but a realist description of the art of running a state.

Traditionally, two books are attributed to Chanakya: Arthashastra,[39] and Chanakya Niti, also known as Chanakya Neeti-shastra,[40] a collection of aphorisms, said to be selected by Chanakya from the various shastras.[40]

Early on, the attribution to Chanakya has been questioned,[41][c] and contemporary scholarship since 1965 rejects this attribution to Chanakya,[b] regarding the Arthashastra as a compilation of a number of earlier texts written by various authors, which were compiled in a new text around the beginning of the Common Era; this text then underwent a major redaction or expansion at the end of the first century CE or in the second century.[5][42][43][44] Patrick Olivelle states that the oldest layer of text, the "sources of the Kauṭilya", dates from the period 150 BCE–50 CE. The next phase of the work's evolution, the "Kauṭilya Recension", which compiled portions of these sources into a new shastra, can be dated to the period 50–125 CE. Finally, the "Śāstric Redaction" (i.e., the text as we have it today) is dated period 175–300 CE.[5]

The Arthashastra identifies its author as Kauṭilya, a gotra or clan name, except for one verse that refers to him by the personal name of Vishnugupta.[d] One of the earliest Sanskrit literatures to identify Chanakya with Vishnugupta explicitly was the Panchatantra (2nd c. CE).[45][need quotation to verify] K. C. Ojha proposes that the traditional identification of Vishnugupta with Kauṭilya was caused by a confusion of the text's editor and its originator. He suggests that Vishnugupta was a redactor of the original work of Kauṭilya.[4]

R. P. Kangle, writing in the 1960s, found the traditional attribution to the Maurya prime minister Chanakya acceptable, therefor dating the Arthashastra to Mauryan times.[46] Critical scholarship after Kangle, such as Thomas Trautmann and Patrick Olivelle, following Thomas Burrow, reject this identification of Chanakya and Kautilya,[e] as it is a later development from the Gupta period. Trautmann points out that none of the earlier sources that refer to Chanakya mention his authorship of the Arthashastra,[46] and Olivelle notes that "the name Canakya, however, is completely absent from the text."[47] The identification happens at the penultimate paragraph of the Arthashastra, which states, "without the explicit use of the name Canakya," that the treatise was authored by the person who rescued the country from the Nanda kings,"[48] that is, the Maurya prime minister Chanakya who played a pivotal role in the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty.

The Guptas tried to present themselves symbolically as the legitimate successors of the Mauryas, even using the names "Chandragupta" and "Gupta," a connection also made in the play Mudraraksasa, composed in the time of the Guptas.[47] The verse seems to be a later interpolation, and Olivelle proposes that it was an attempt to identify the author of the political treatise, which was followed by the Guptas, with the renowned Maurya prime minister.[49]

Several reasons are given for the persistent scholarly attribution to Chanakya, which from the beginning has been "heavily influenced" by this traditional attribution,[50] and has led many scholars to an a priori dating to Mauryan times.[51] One reason is the reception by Indian nationalists, who saw it "as evidence of a pragmatic and virile tradition of self-rule in India’s past."[52] According to Trautmann, "[n]ationalist aspirations seemed somehow fortified when the existence of strongly centralized empires and native schools of political theory was shown."[52] Furthermore, the identification with Kautilya provided "a link to the most powerful dynasty in South Asian antiquity: the Mauryan Empire,[52] and "[g]iven the absolute paucity of sources for this most intriguing era, many scholars seem unable to resist using the Arthaśāstra as a source for the period, despite a decided lack of supporting evidence."[50] According to McClish, "the desire on the part of Indologists to possess just such a source seems to have exerted, in general, a strong influence on conclusions about the compositional history of the text."[50]

Kautilya's works were lost near the end of the Gupta Empire in the sixth century CE and not rediscovered until the early 20th century, when the Arthashastra was discovered in 1905 by librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry in an uncatalogued group of ancient palm-leaf manuscripts donated by an unknown pandit to the Oriental Research Institute Mysore.[53] It discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations, and war strategies in detail. The text also outlines the duties of a ruler.[54][unreliable source?] Kautilya uses different terms to describe war other than dharma-yuddha (just war), such as kutayudhha (unjust war).[55]

Kautilya's work is thought of as an important precursor to classical economics.[56][57][58] and based on the identification of Kautilya with Chanakya, K.N. Jha considers Chanakya as the pioneer of the field of political science and economics in India, .[59]

Naming

[edit]

The diplomatic enclave in New Delhi is named Chanakyapuri in honour of Chanakya. Institutes named after him include Training Ship Chanakya, Chanakya National Law University and Chanakya Institute of Public Leadership. Chanakya circle in Mysore has been named after him.[60][self-published source?]

[edit]

Plays

[edit]

Several modern adaptations of the legend of Chanakya narrate his story in a semi-fictional form, extending these legends. In Chandragupta (1911), a play by Dwijendralal Ray, the Nanda king exiles his half-brother Chandragupta, who joins the army of Alexander the Great. Later, with help from Chanakya and Katyayan (the former Prime Minister of Magadha), Chandragupta defeats Nanda, who is put to death by Chanakya.[61]

Film and television

[edit]

Arthashastra

[edit]
  • Ashok R. Garde, Chanakya on Management contains 216 sutras on raja-neeti, each of which has been translated and commented upon.
  • Ratan Lal Basu & Rajkumar Sen: Ancient Indian Economic Thought, Relevance for Today, ISBN 81-316-0125-0, Rawat Publications, New Delhi, 2008, deals with the economic concepts mentioned in Arthashastra and their relevance for the modern world.
  • In 2009, many eminent experts discussed the various aspects of Kauṭilya's thought in an International Conference held at the Oriental Research Institute in Mysore (India) to celebrate the centenary of discovery of the manuscript of the Arthashastra by R. Shamasastry. Most of the papers presented in the Conference have been compiled in an edited volume by Raj Kumar Sen and Ratan Lal Basu.[63][64]
  • Pavan Choudary (2 February 2009). Chanakya's Political Wisdom. Wisdom Village Publications Division. ISBN 978-81-906555-0-7., a political commentary on Chanakya
  • Sihag, Balbir Singh (2014), Kautilya: The True Founder of Economics, Vitasta Publishing Pvt.Ltd, ISBN 978-81-925354-9-4
  • Radhakrishnan Pillai has written a number of books related to Chanakya:
  • "Chanakya in the Classroom: Life Lessons for Students",[65]
  • "Chanakya Neeti: Strategies for Success", "Chanakya in You", "Chanakya and the Art of War", "Corporate Chanakya",[66]
  • "Corporate Chanakya on Management" and "Corporate Chanakya on Leadership".[67]

Fiction

[edit]
  • Chanakya (2001) by B. K. Chaturvedi[68]
  • Chanakya's Chant by Ashwin Sanghi is a fictional account of Chanakya's life as a political strategist in ancient India. The novel relates two parallel stories, the first of Chanakya and his machinations to bring Chandragupta Maurya to the throne of Magadha; the second, that of a modern-day character called Gangasagar Mishra who makes it his ambition to position a slum child as Prime Minister of India.
  • The Emperor's Riddles by Satyarth Nayak features popular episodes from Chanakya's life.
  • Kauṭilya's role in the formation of the Maurya Empire is the essence of a historical/spiritual novel Courtesan and the Sadhu by Mysore N. Prakash.[69]
  • Chanakya's contribution to the cultural heritage of Bharat (in Kannada) by Shatavadhani Ganesh with the title Bharatada Samskrutige Chanakyana Kodugegalu.[70]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Chanakya

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Chanakya (c. 350–275 BCE), also known by the names Kautilya and Vishnugupta, was an ancient Indian Brahmin , , and who served as chief advisor to , the founder of the (r. c. 321–297 BCE). He is traditionally credited with authoring the , a treatise on statecraft, , , and administrative governance that emphasizes and pragmatic rule over moral idealism. While later Jain, Buddhist, and Brahmanical texts portray him as instrumental in overthrowing the Nanda dynasty and consolidating power through Chandragupta, direct archaeological or epigraphic evidence for his life and deeds is absent, with biographical accounts deriving primarily from post-Mauryan legends rather than contemporary records. The , rediscovered in manuscript form in 1905 and first published in 1909, outlines a centralized , networks, taxation systems, and ethical guidelines for rulers that prioritize national strength and prosperity, influencing subsequent Indian political thought. Chanakya's reputed of Chandragupta involved training in governance and warfare, enabling the young ruler to unify much of the following the Great's retreat, though the extent of his personal role remains conjectural amid scholarly debates on the text's composite authorship spanning centuries. His doctrines advocate a ruler's use of danda () judiciously, alongside and economic measures, reflecting a causal understanding of power dynamics where unchecked weakness invites conquest. Notable for its secular and utilitarian approach, Chanakya's legacy endures in aphoristic compilations like Chanakya Niti, which distill principles of prudence, vigilance, and , though these too lack firm attribution to his era. Modern analyses highlight the Arthashastra's prescient insights into , , and institutional checks, underscoring its value as empirical guidance derived from observed political realities rather than . Despite romanticized narratives in , rigorous historical inquiry privileges the treatise's tangible content over unverifiable anecdotes, affirming Chanakya's conceptual contributions to enduring state theory.

Identity and Historicity

Names and Traditional Identifications

Chanakya is traditionally identified with Kautilya, the name by which the author of the refers to himself throughout the text, denoting affiliation with the Kautilya or clan lineage. This identification stems from later Indian literary and historical traditions that conflate the treatise's composer with the advisor to , though primary evidence for such linkage remains inferential. The name Vishnugupta appears in a single verse of the as a potential personal designation of the same figure, with scholars interpreting it as the of Kautilya, distinct from the clan-based . Traditional accounts further equate this with Chanakya, positing Vishnugupta as the core identity unified under multiple epithets in post-Mauryan narratives. The Gudnapur Pillar Inscription of Kadamba king Ravivarman (c. 465–500 CE) describes the king as a master of the Nītiśāstra of Vishnugupta, providing early epigraphic evidence that teachings attributed to this name were transmitted and esteemed in South Indian royal contexts by the 5th century CE. The appellation Chanakya itself is linked in tradition to origins near , possibly as a derived from "Chanaka," signifying descent or regional association, though exact etymological derivations vary across sources without contemporary attestation. An early literary reference to this name occurs in Vishakhadatta's , a drama composed between the 4th and 8th centuries CE, where the Mauryan-era counselor is explicitly called Chanakya, establishing a basis for the nomenclature's association with statecraft advisory roles.

Evidence from Primary Sources

No contemporary records from the Mauryan period (c. 322–185 BCE) mention Chanakya or Kautilya by name. Inscriptions attributed to Chandragupta's grandson , such as the erected across the empire from c. 260 BCE, enumerate policies on , conquests, and administration but contain no references to Chanakya as advisor or author. Greek diplomatic accounts, including fragments preserved from ' Indica (c. 300 BCE), describe Chandragupta Maurya's court, military, and but omit any figure matching Chanakya's traditional role. The earliest extant textual reference to a Chanakya-like figure occurs in Vishakhadatta's drama , composed between the 4th and 8th centuries CE, which depicts Kautilya (identified as Chanakya) as Chandragupta's cunning minister who forges documents using Rakshasa's stolen signet ring to secure alliances and dismantle Nanda resistance. This play, structured in seven acts, focuses on political intrigue rather than , presenting Chanakya's tactics as instrumental in Mauryan consolidation without claiming eyewitness basis. Kamandaka's (c. 4th–7th centuries CE), a verse treatise on rajaniti, explicitly acknowledges Kautilya's as its foundational influence, adapting sections on alliances, , and royal duties while emphasizing moral restraints absent in the earlier text. The 's 20 chapters draw doctrinal parallels, such as upayas (expedients) for statecraft, but treat Kautilya as a revered antecedent rather than contemporary actor. Archaeological evidence, including Mauryan pillars, stupas, and from sites like , confirms imperial infrastructure and figures like via dedicatory scripts but yields no artifacts, seals, or inscriptions naming Chanakya. This scarcity contrasts with epigraphic attestations for other early officials, underscoring reliance on later literary attributions for Chanakya's identity.

Scholarly Debates on Existence

Scholars remain divided on whether Chanakya existed as a during the Mauryan era (c. 321–185 BCE), with arguments centering on the absence of contemporaneous evidence and the retrospective nature of surviving accounts. Proponents of point to the of a cunning advisor facilitating Chandragupta Maurya's rise against the Nanda dynasty, a motif recurring independently in Buddhist, Jain, and later , which may preserve a kernel of truth amid embellishment, as such consistent convergence across traditions is unlikely to arise ex nihilo without some factual basis. However, this consistency emerges only in sources composed centuries after the events, with no corroboration from Greek accounts like ' Indica or 's rock edicts, which detail Mauryan but omit any reference to a figure matching Chanakya's profile. Skeptical positions, advanced by historians like Thomas Trautmann, posit Chanakya as a legendary overlay on the theoretician Kautilya, the named author of the , arguing that the conflation serves narrative purposes in post-Mauryan story cycles rather than reflecting 4th-century BCE reality. Trautmann traces the "Cāṇakya-Candragupta-Kathā" (story cycle) through four developmental stages, culminating in medieval compilations, and contends that equating the two ignores discrepancies in and the 's internal evidence of composite authorship spanning multiple eras. , in his analysis of the text's layers, reinforces this by dating core sections to the 1st–3rd centuries CE, incompatible with a single 4th-century BCE author-advisor, and highlights how colophons attribute the work solely to Kautilya without invoking Chanakya. Causal scrutiny from source dating underscores the evidential void: no inscriptions, coins, or artifacts pre-dating the CE mention Chanakya, and the earliest textual references appear in hagiographic Buddhist and Jain canons redacted 500–800 years later, prone to idealization and political . This temporal gap invites explanations of with archetypal figures or multiple historical Brahmins, rather than accepting uncritical nationalist readings that prioritize tradition over primary verification, as extraordinary claims of a singular mastermind behind the Mauryan empire demand proportional contemporary attestation absent here.

The Arthashastra as Primary Attribution

Textual Overview and Structure

The is organized into 15 adhikaraṇas (books), 150 prakaraṇas (chapters), and 180 praśnas (topics or sections), forming a systematic on that spans domestic administration, economic , judicial procedures, and affairs. Book 1 addresses the foundational duties of the king, including the selection of ministers and the establishment of a of advisors; Book 2 details civil administration, such as departmental oversight for , , and crafts; subsequent books cover fiscal policies, legal codes, networks, and strategies for warfare and . This division reflects a pragmatic blueprint for state operations, prioritizing measurable efficiency in and bureaucratic control over ideological prescriptions. Central to the text's framework is the saptāṅga theory, which conceptualizes the state as an organic entity composed of seven interdependent elements: the sovereign (svāmin), ministers (amātya), populated territory (janapada), fortifications (durga), treasury (kośa), coercive force (daṇḍa), and allies (mitra). These components must be harmonized to achieve sovereignty and territorial expansion, with the king positioned as the pivotal moral and strategic arbiter who deploys daṇḍa (chastisement or force) judiciously to maintain order while leveraging counsel from amātyas and exploiting the productive capacity of rāṣṭra (national resources and populace). The theory underscores a realist integration of punitive authority, advisory intelligence, and territorial assets, warning that weakness in any element invites collapse, as illustrated by analogies to a body deprived of limbs or a chariot lacking wheels. The Arthashastra's approach to emphasizes empirical , advocating policies tested through observable results such as revenue yields, military readiness, and administrative productivity rather than reliance on ritualistic or ethical absolutes. Detailed prescriptions—for instance, on taxation rates calibrated to agricultural output, spy networks for real-time , and fortifications designed for defensive —aim to maximize (material prosperity and power) via causal mechanisms like deterrence and incentive alignment. This methodical structure positions the text as a manual for rulers seeking sustainable dominance, integrating and into a cohesive system of control.

Core Doctrines of Statecraft

The Arthashastra delineates statecraft as a pragmatic pursuit of —material prosperity and power—as the indispensable foundation for , subordinating ethical or religious considerations to empirical necessities of security and expansion. The text instructs rulers to prioritize policies that augment state resources, viewing wealth accumulation not as an end but as the causal enabler of military and administrative strength. is explicitly rejected; a must prepare for conquest to avoid subjugation, as "conquer or be conquered" encapsulates the realist imperative for proactive dominance over defensive inertia. Espionage constitutes a core mechanism of realpolitik, with the treatise outlining an extensive network of agents—including stationary spies (sthaūrika), wandering informants (san̄cāra), and assassins (satriṇa)—to monitor internal dissent, foreign intentions, and economic vulnerabilities. Over 50 of the text's 150 sections reference spy operations, emphasizing their role in preempting threats through intelligence rather than reactive force, thereby minimizing risks in conquests. Economic control complements this by mandating state monopolies on critical resources like mines, forests, and salt production to centralize revenue and deny adversaries access. Taxation policies aim to maximize artha through graduated rates, typically one-sixth of agricultural produce and profits from trade, calibrated to sustain productivity without inciting rebellion—excessive levies above this threshold erode the tax base, while insufficient ones weaken defenses. Trade regulation prohibits usurious foreign merchants from dominating markets, favoring state-supervised guilds and tariffs to protect domestic wealth flows, with revenue directed toward public infrastructure like to bolster agricultural yields as the economy's backbone. These measures reject ideals, positing state intervention as causally essential for amassing the surplus needed for sustained power. Military doctrines integrate the rājamāṇḍala (circle of kings) theory, modeling interstate relations as concentric geographic rings: the central king faces immediate neighbors as inherent enemies (ari), their contiguous states as natural allies (mitra), extending to neutral mediators and rearward threats in a structure of 12 principal kings across four circles. Alliances form dynamically based on this spatial realism, prioritizing coalitions with an enemy's enemy to encircle and conquer, rather than ideological affinities. Conquest tactics endorse asymmetric methods, including sowing discord via spies, assassinating leaders, and deploying a fourfold army (dhanḍa) of infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariots, tailored to terrain and enemy weaknesses for decisive victories. The ruler assesses campaigns by weighing probable gains against costs, advocating war only when victory probability exceeds equilibrium through superior preparation.

Dating, Layers, and Compilation Process

The Arthashastra displays characteristics of a composite text, compiled through multiple stages of rather than composed as a unified work by a single author in the 4th century BCE. Philological evidence, including variations in prose style, , and doctrinal emphasis across its 15 , indicates accretions over centuries, with an original core possibly drawing from earlier treatises on statecraft (arthaśāstra) but expanded through interpolations. Scholar identifies the earliest discernible layers, termed the "sources of Kauṭilya," as dating between 150 BCE and 50 CE, followed by a phase of reorganization and addition up to the CE, culminating in the received form by the early CE. This timeline aligns with linguistic features, such as the terse, aphoristic of foundational sections, overlaid with later explanatory verses (sūtra and bhāṣya). Evidence of redaction includes abrupt shifts in content, such as Book 2's detailed administrative manuals contrasting with the more theoretical Books 7–14 on , suggesting integration of disparate materials. Further support for multi-stage development comes from Thomas R. Trautmann's stylometric analysis, which quantifies word frequencies and collocations to demonstrate inconsistencies incompatible with single authorship; for instance, rare terms like (punishment) cluster unevenly, implying evolutionary layering from proto-texts rather than monolithic composition. Anachronistic elements, including references to mature guild organizations (śreṇī) that gained economic prominence only in the post-Mauryan era (after 185 BCE), and depictions of Yavanas (Greeks or Ionians) as maritime traders sourcing exotic goods like tortoise shells—plausible only after Alexander's campaigns opened Indo-Greek contacts around 326 BCE—reinforce the presence of later additions. Post-2000 scholarship, building on these analyses, portrays the as a redacted derived from oral and scribal traditions of Brahmanical experts, progressively incorporating responses to historical shifts like Hellenistic incursions and guild autonomy, thus challenging attributions to a singular 4th-century BCE Mauryan origin. This process likely involved anonymous compilers harmonizing conflicting views from predecessors like Bṛhaspati and Uśanas, evident in internal citations and doctrinal variances.

Legendary Role in Mauryan Foundations

Origins and Oath Against the Nandas

According to traditional legends preserved in later Indian texts, Chanakya, also known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta, was born into a poor family around 371 BCE, possibly in Takshashila or the village of Chanaka in . These accounts portray him as physically unattractive—described with a lean frame, protruding teeth, dark complexion, and unkempt hair—yet emphasize his superior intellect and scholarly mastery as overriding such traits. The pivotal event in these narratives occurred when Chanakya, seeking to advise or reform the Nanda regime, presented himself at the court of , the last king of the Nanda dynasty (r. c. 329–321 BCE), whose rule was marked by wealth accumulation, tyranny, and administrative inefficiency. Humiliated for his appearance, courtiers or the king himself mocked him, pulled his sacred shikha (tuft or braid of hair), and ejected him from the assembly. In response, Chanakya swore a dramatic : he would neither tie nor cut his hair until he uprooted the entire Nanda lineage and reestablished (righteous order) in , symbolizing his unyielding resolve against perceived decadent and unmeritorious rule. This personal affront is depicted as igniting his strategic opposition, rooted in a Brahminical disdain for authority and a pragmatic assessment of the Nandas' vulnerabilities. Such tales, while illustrative of Chanakya's attributed realpolitik—prioritizing causal levers like elite dissatisfaction and institutional decay over moral absolutism—lack substantiation in primary sources like inscriptions or early chronicles, emerging instead in medieval compositions such as the Skanda Purana's Kashika Khanda and the 9th-century Sanskrit drama Mudrarakshasa. No archaeological or textual evidence from the 4th century BCE confirms these biographical details, suggesting they serve hagiographic purposes to retroactively justify the Mauryan overthrow of the Nandas rather than reflect verifiable events. Later traditions amplify the motif to underscore intellect's triumph over superficiality and brute power, but empirical historiography views them as mythic constructs without causal grounding in documented history.

Discovery and Grooming of Chandragupta

According to traditional narratives preserved in historical accounts, Chanakya encountered the young in a rural village near Patliputra, where the boy was leading a group of children in mock royal games, organizing them into armies and enacting governance roles with authoritative command. Chanakya, seeking a suitable instrument for his vendetta against the Nanda rulers who had humiliated him, tested Chandragupta's mettle by discreetly biting his extended finger during the play; the boy's unyielding focus on maintaining order without flinching or seeking aid revealed exceptional resilience and innate leadership potential, prompting Chanakya to select him as his protégé. Chanakya subsequently secured Chandragupta—then estimated at around eight to ten years old—from his modest pastoral family, possibly through purchase or persuasion, and relocated him for clandestine education, first potentially in for foundational learning in statecraft and martial disciplines before intensive personalized grooming. Over approximately seven years, Chanakya imparted rigorous training in warfare tactics, political intrigue, administrative efficiency, and the pragmatic exercise of power, transforming the youth from an obscure herder's son into a capable capable of mobilizing and directing forces. This and methodical preparation underscored a realist approach, prioritizing demonstrable over in forging a suited to upend the entrenched Nanda regime, whose vast armies—numbering up to 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, and thousands of elephants—dominated . With Chandragupta's preparation complete by his late teens, Chanakya directed the campaign to overthrow the Nandas circa 321 BCE, leveraging asymmetric strategies such as guerrilla tactics, internal , and opportunistic alliances to exploit the dynasty's vulnerabilities rather than direct confrontation. Some accounts allude to Chanakya forging pacts with parivrajaka ascetics for and covert operations, though such elements lack corroboration from contemporary records and appear as later embellishments. References to Greek or Yavana influences in military grooming, possibly inspired by post-Alexandrine deserters, remain speculative and unsupported by archaeological or textual evidence predating the legends. This phase culminated in Chandragupta's seizure of , establishing the Mauryan foundation through calculated that favored efficacy over .

Strategies for Empire Building

According to traditional accounts, Chanakya implemented protective measures for following the conquest of the Nanda dynasty, including the gradual introduction of small doses of into the emperor's daily food to build immunity against attempts by rivals. This ritual, conducted without Chandragupta's knowledge, aimed to safeguard the ruler amid ongoing threats from disloyal elements and foreign powers, such as the lingering influence of Seleucid forces in the northwest after Chandragupta's diplomatic around 305 BCE. One variant of the legend recounts that when Chandragupta shared his poisoned meal with his pregnant queen, she succumbed due to lack of tolerance, prompting Chanakya to perform an emergency extraction of the fetus, which survived with a trace of conferring lifelong resilience and earning the name ("drop of poison"). In advisory capacities extending to Bindusara's reign (c. 297–273 BCE), Chanakya is credited in legends with orchestrating a smooth dynastic transition by neutralizing potential rivals and ensuring 's consolidation of power, contrasting with the verifiable military expansions under Bindusara into the Deccan regions through direct conquests rather than intrigue. These tactics emphasized , including the use of deception and alliances to preempt rebellions, as Bindusara inherited a vast but unstable empire spanning from modern to southern . Administrative structures attributed to Chanakya's influence post-conquest included a centralized with provincial governors (kumara) overseeing revenue collection and justice, supported by an extensive spy network of stationary and mobile agents disguised as ascetics or merchants to monitor officials and detect disloyalty. This apparatus, comprising both operatives, enabled rapid intelligence flow to the capital at , facilitating efficient over diverse territories without relying solely on verifiable military garrisons. Such reforms legendarily stabilized the empire's core, allowing economic policies like standardized taxation to fund , though from edicts points to evolutionary developments rather than singular attribution. Legends surrounding Chanakya's death around 283 BCE portray him undertaking ritual self-starvation () in a forest retreat, symbolizing detachment after deeming his imperial duties fulfilled, or as a response to intrigues by Bindusara's minister Subandhu, who exploited the advisor's ascetic vulnerabilities. Alternative narratives invoke in a final act of strategic withdrawal, underscoring themes of amid political success, though these accounts lack corroboration from contemporary inscriptions like Ashoka's edicts.

Variations Across Religious Traditions

Buddhist Narratives

Buddhist accounts of Chanakya, preserved in the Mahavamsa (compiled between the 5th and 6th centuries CE) and its commentary Vamsatthappakasini (also known as Mahavamsa Tika), portray him as a scholar from skilled in stratagems and governance who allies with Chandragupta to overthrow the Nanda dynasty. These texts describe Chanakya's initial insult at the hands of King , prompting a solemn vow of vengeance to dismantle the Nanda regime, after which he identifies Chandragupta—a prince of the Moriya clan—as his instrument for this purpose. Unlike some Hindu traditions that attribute physical deformities to Chanakya, these narratives emphasize his intellectual prowess and filial duty, such as protecting his mother amid political turmoil, framing his resolve as rooted in personal honor rather than innate cunning alone. In the Mahavamsa Tika's Canakya-Candragupta-Katha, Chanakya tests Chandragupta's mettle by allying temporarily with another prince, Parvata, only to order his execution to confirm Chandragupta's ruthlessness, followed by seven years of rigorous training in leadership and . To fund the campaign, Chanakya amasses equivalent to 80 kotis of kahapanas through recoining debased and unearthing buried treasures, enabling the of a formidable . Initial frontal assaults on fail, leading Chanakya to adopt an indirect strategy of conquering peripheral regions first—likened to eating a from the edges inward, per advice from a villager—culminating in Dhana Nanda's and Chandragupta's enthronement within a month of securing hidden Nanda riches. These narratives, embedded in Sinhalese chronicles legitimizing Mauryan patronage of , temper the of with a lens aligned to karmic : Chanakya's arises from dharma-bound retribution against insult, and the resulting empire under Chandragupta paves the way for Buddhist flourishing under successors like , without explicit endorsement of gratuitous but acknowledging calculated as instrumental to restoring order. This contrasts with Hindu accounts by subordinating to a teleological arc supporting Buddhist historical continuity, downplaying unbridled amorality in favor of outcomes benefiting the , though tactical murders and deceptions remain unvarnished.

Jain Narratives

In Jain tradition, narratives of Chanakya, identified as Vishnugupta or Kautilya, appear prominently in the (also known as Sthaviravali-Charita), a 12th-century CE text by the Svetambara , which synthesizes earlier Jain accounts from the 1st to 8th centuries. These retellings frame Chanakya as born around 375 BCE to lay Jain parents, Chanin (or Chani) and Chaneshvari (or Chaneshwari), in the South Indian village of Chanaka, where his birth with a full set of teeth—a mark of potential royalty—was interpreted through a lens of non-violence, leading his father to curb any inclination toward direct rule. Depicted as a Taxilan and author of the , Chanakya suffers humiliation at the Nanda court under , prompting a vow of vengeance that drives him to identify and mentor the low-born as a future . He tests Chandragupta's innate —evident in the youth's instinctive claim, "The earth is for the enjoyment of the brave"—and grooms him through education in statecraft, amassing resources via advanced to fund an for . The overthrow of the Nandas involves calculated digvijaya campaigns, including the siege of , where Chanakya spares Dhana Nanda's life and integrates his family—leading to Chandragupta's to Nanda's daughter—while suppressing residual loyalists through indirect means, such as enlisting a weaver to methodically eliminate threats, thereby restoring order with minimized gratuitous violence in alignment with . Distinct from more conquest-focused accounts, these Jain versions emphasize ascetic reinterpretation: Chanakya demonstrates the superiority of Jain monks' sensory detachment over fraudulent ascetics, ultimately persuading Chandragupta to renounce the throne amid a 12-year , adopt under Bhadrabahu, and migrate southward, culminating in sallekhana (ritual fasting to death) at around 297 BCE, which spreads to regions like . Chanakya follows suit, undertaking sallekhana himself and, per legend, being reborn as a , thus subordinating pragmatic power strategies to ethical and non-violence.

Hindu and Dramatic Accounts

The , a drama attributed to (c. 6th–8th century CE), dramatizes Chanakya's post-conquest maneuvers to solidify Chandragupta Maurya's rule after the Nanda downfall. The narrative focuses on Chanakya's orchestration of espionage and deception to suborn , the Nandas' shrewd chief minister, who pledges loyalty to their surviving heir and forges an alliance with the Yavana ruler Parvata. Central to the intrigue, Chanakya's spies pilfer 's signet ring to fabricate letters implicating Rakshasa in against Parvata, eroding his support base and isolating him strategically. This culminates in Rakshasa's coerced allegiance to Chandragupta, portrayed as a triumph of calculated over brute force, enabling the Mauryan regime's internal unification without protracted warfare. Kashmiri chronicles, exemplified by Kalhana's (completed 1148 CE), integrate Chanakya's legacy into narratives of Mauryan expansion, stressing diplomatic stratagems such as Chandragupta's negotiations yielding northwestern territories from in return for 500 elephants around 305–303 BCE. These elements underscore Chanakya's facilitation of anti-Seleucid alliances through subtle influence and leverage, extending imperial frontiers via rather than direct confrontation. In Hindu interpretive frameworks across these dramatic and historiographic traditions, Chanakya's expedients embody -sanctioned ingenuity against the Nandas' —depicted as disruptive tyranny by upstart rulers undermining varna order and righteous governance—legitimizing as an instrumental pursuit of subordinate to ethical restoration.

Political Philosophy and Realpolitik

Principles of Power and Governance

In the Arthashastra, the king's adherence to raja-dharma—the duties essential for sovereign authority—centers on perpetual vigilance to safeguard the state's stability against internal decay and external threats. Kautilya mandates the deployment of an extensive apparatus, including stationary and wandering spies, to surveil ministers, officials, and the populace, thereby preempting conspiracies and ensuring administrative fidelity. Ministers and councilors undergo rigorous vetting through trials of temptation, such as offers of bribes or , to verify their , with only those demonstrating unswerving appointed to high . This system of checks derives from the causal insight that unchecked ambition erodes , as evidenced by the text's emphasis on the king's daily routine of consulting intelligence reports before other affairs. Wealth accumulation forms the material bedrock of power, enabling mobilization and administrative control, with Kautilya asserting that "all state activities depend on the " and that governmental strength emerges directly from fiscal reserves. The ruler must prioritize revenue from land taxes, trade tariffs, and state monopolies on commodities like salt and mines, while avoiding overexploitation that could provoke , thereby fostering a self-reinforcing cycle where sustains coercive capacity. This pragmatic orientation treats not as an abstract ideal but as the empirical prerequisite for danda—the rod of punishment and force—that underpins order. Foreign policy operates through the shadgunya, or six-fold measures—sandhi (peace treaties), vigraha (war), asana (neutrality), yana (preparatory mobilization), samshraya (seeking alliances), and dvaidhibhava (dual policy of peace with one and war with another)—calibrated strictly to the relative balance of power between states. A weaker king favors sandhi or samshraya to buy time for strengthening, while parity warrants asana to observe without commitment, and superiority justifies vigraha or yana for expansion; this relativistic framework prioritizes measurable factors like troop numbers, fortification quality, and resource endowments over moral posturing. Internal governance enforces social functions aligned with varna categories—Brahmins for counsel and rituals, Kshatriyas for defense, Vaishyas for commerce, and Shudras for labor—not as immutable dogma but as utilitarian divisions to optimize productivity and suppress disorder. Pragmatic implementation involves state oversight of via guilds and , with penalties for deviation scaled to maintain economic output rather than ideological purity, recognizing that rigid invites inefficiency while flexible coercion sustains the labor base critical for and recruitment.

Integration of Ethics and Pragmatism

Kautilya's Arthashastra subordinates —encompassing and ethical norms—to , the pursuit of material prosperity, security, and state power, particularly in times of exigency, as the preservation of the enables any moral order to persist. The text asserts that ethical prescriptions, while foundational in stable conditions, must yield when the state's existence is threatened, rejecting absolute or that could invite conquest by opportunistic rivals. This instrumental view of frames it not as an inviolable constraint but as a tool aligned with pragmatic , where deviations from conventional serve broader ethical ends like societal welfare. The critiques rulers enamored with , warning that kings who eschew conquest or due to ethical qualms render their realms vulnerable to , as causal dynamics of power favor the resolute over the scrupulous. Weak polities, marked by internal disaffection or inadequate defenses, invite intervention, underscoring realism as a necessity rooted in the mechanics of interstate competition rather than caprice. Kautilya emphasizes that unchecked erodes , as adversaries exploit moral hesitancy to consolidate dominance, thereby prioritizing state survival as the precondition for ethical administration. Pragmatism in the Arthashastra incorporates calibrated through proportionate punishments calibrated to deter while preserving social , avoiding excess that breeds resentment or inefficiency. Concurrently, the king fosters welfare initiatives—such as , facilitation, and relief—to bolster economic output and subject loyalty, integrating with to sustain a viable without descending into unbridled tyranny. This synthesis counters portrayals of unmitigated amorality by rooting statecraft in causal incentives: yields revenue for defense, while restrained upholds order, ensuring reinforces rather than obstructs pragmatic imperatives.

Comparisons with Western Thinkers

Kautilya's Arthashastra, dated to the 4th century BCE, anticipates the of Niccolò Machiavelli's (1532 CE) by nearly two millennia, both endorsing a pragmatic pursuit of state power where effective outcomes justify morally flexible means, such as strategic and the against threats. Similarities extend to the advocacy of extensive systems for monitoring internal dissent and external enemies, viewing spies as indispensable tools for preempting conspiracies and ensuring loyalty. Yet, Kautilya's framework embeds these tactics within a holistic statecraft, incorporating —such as revenue maximization through taxation and —and , including codified laws on contracts and inheritance, elements Machiavelli omits in favor of personalized counsel for a Renaissance . In contrast to Machiavelli's emphasis on the ruler's virtù and fortuna amid fragmented Italian city-states, Kautilya delineates a systemic theory of governance, with the saptanga (seven limbs of the state) outlining interdependent institutions like the treasury, army, and judiciary to sustain a centralized empire. This institutional depth, informed by empirical analysis of administrative efficiency rather than anecdotal exemplars from Roman history, underscores a causal focus on scalable mechanisms over individual agency. The practical validation of Kautilya's prescriptions is evident in the Mauryan Empire's endurance from 321 to 185 BCE, spanning over 130 years of territorial consolidation and internal stability across the Indian subcontinent, outlasting the transient principalities Machiavelli navigated. Such longevity highlights the Arthashastra's edge in integrating realpolitik with operational governance, yielding verifiable state resilience absent in Machiavelli's more circumscribed advisory scope.

Criticisms and Controversies

Accusations of Amorality

Critics of Chanakya's teachings, particularly in the Arthashastra, contend that his advocacy for —employing , , and strategic alliances regardless of moral qualms—amounts to by decoupling statecraft from ethical constraints. Such views portray tactics like infiltrating enemy courts with spies or fabricating pretexts for war as endorsing tyranny, prioritizing raw power acquisition over justice or virtue. These accusations often stem from interpretations that overlook the text's embedded qualifiers, interpreting pragmatic counsel as blanket endorsement of ruthlessness. However, the Arthashastra does not reject ethics outright but subordinates them to the imperatives of state preservation in a competitive geopolitical environment, mandating calibrated responses to threats rather than indiscriminate excess. For instance, while permitting deception against adversaries, it prescribes proportionality in punishment and governance, warning against overreach that could destabilize the realm or provoke backlash, and integrates (righteous order) into administrative duties like welfare provision and fair taxation. This contextual reflects causal necessities: unchecked in power vacuums historically invites conquest or fragmentation, as evidenced by the post-Nanda instability Chanakya navigated, where moral posturing alone failed to consolidate authority. Empirical outcomes under , guided by these principles, underscore their stabilizing effects; the empire's unification through centralized administration, standardized currency, and military reforms fostered economic prosperity and spanning much of the subcontinent by circa 300 BCE, contrasting with contemporaneous fragmented polities reliant on less adaptive . Critics imputing inherent often discount such historical evidence, favoring normative ideals detached from the anarchic realities of ancient interstate , where survival demanded foresight over purity.

Debates on Authorship and Single-Handed Creation

The repeatedly attributes its composition to Kautilya, a figure equated in tradition with , the advisor to around 321–297 BCE, while also referencing Vishnugupta in colophons as a possible redactor or compiler. This internal attribution supports claims of unified authorship tied to the Mauryan era, yet lacks external corroboration from contemporary inscriptions or texts, with the manuscript tradition emerging only after its rediscovery in 1905 from a palm-leaf copy dated to the 5th–6th century CE. Linguistic and reveals evidence of composite origins, including abrupt shifts in prose style between terse sūtra passages and expansive commentaries, as well as doctrinal inconsistencies, such as varying emphases on economic policies that align with post-Mauryan developments like systems absent in earlier Indic . Scholars employing quantitative , including syllable counts and phrase distributions, have identified at least three compositional layers: an early core of aphoristic rules possibly from the 3rd century BCE, interpolated expansions in the 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE, and a final incorporating later administrative references up to the 3rd century CE. These discrepancies undermine the notion of single-handed creation, suggesting accretions by successive contributors rather than a monolithic 4th-century BCE text. The linkage of Kautilya to the historical Chanakya appears retrospective, projected onto the treatise during medieval commentaries and dramatizations like Vishakhadatta's (circa 4th–8th century CE), which romanticize his role without textual evidence from the itself. While some traditionalists defend unitary authorship by Kautilya as a synthesizing genius, the preponderance of philological evidence favors a school-based compilation, where doctrines were refined across generations, rendering the work's pragmatic insights enduring irrespective of hagiographic inflation of individual agency. This layered evolution highlights institutional knowledge transmission over personal authorship myths, though it does not invalidate the treatise's core principles of statecraft.

Misuse in Modern Interpretations

In modern Indian political , particularly among nationalist figures, Chanakya's teachings are frequently invoked to rationalize expedient power consolidation, such as through the strategic use of , , , and division (), yet this selective emphasis neglects the 's detailed protocols for vetting ministers via multi-stage examinations and probationary to curb and overreach. Such cherry-picking distorts the original pragmatic balance, portraying the text as an unqualified endorsement of unchecked rather than a system integrating with mechanisms like annual audits of officials' . Left-leaning critiques, influenced by institutional biases favoring egalitarian ideals over , have labeled aspects of the as precursors to or even due to its prioritization of state security and , but these dismissals ignore embedded welfare provisions, including state-funded , relief, and regulated markets to protect consumers from , which underpinned . This ideological framing overlooks causal evidence from the Mauryan era, where implementation of these principles—combining fiscal prudence with social safeguards—facilitated empire-building from a fragmented Nanda overthrow in 321 BCE to territorial dominance by 305 BCE, sustaining a over 50 million under centralized administration. Empirical contrasts highlight the misuse: states adhering strictly to moralistic dharma-centric governance without artha's material focus often fragmented due to internal dissent and resource mismanagement, as seen in pre-Mauryan principalities, whereas the Arthashastra's holistic approach empirically correlated with enduring expansion and prosperity until administrative lapses post-Ashoka. Nationalist glorification exacerbates distortion by treating the text as Chanakya's monolithic invention, disregarding its composite layers compiled over generations, which dilutes first-principles analysis of its adaptive evolution. Modern applications thus risk causal errors, applying decontextualized ruthlessness without the countervailing structures that prevented in practice.

Enduring Legacy

Influence on Indian Statecraft

The Arthashastra's principles of centralized administration, , and collection reverberated in later Indian political texts, notably Kamandaka's (c. 4th–7th century CE), which systematically adapts Kautilya's frameworks for statecraft, diplomacy, and military organization while subordinating them to . Similarly, the (c. 200 BCE–200 CE) incorporates overlapping directives on governance, such as the king's duty to maintain order through surveillance and fiscal equity, blending ethical imperatives with pragmatic control mechanisms akin to Chanakya's . In the (c. 320–550 CE), administrative practices sustained Mauryan precedents established under Chanakya's guidance, including a bureaucratic hierarchy for taxation and internal monitoring that prioritized state revenue from land assessments and trade duties, ensuring fiscal stability amid expansion. networks, detailed in the as tools for preempting rebellion and gauging official loyalty, persisted as a core element of imperial oversight, with spies embedded in provincial units to enforce centralized authority. The Chola administration (c. 9th–13th centuries CE) evidenced Chanakya's imprint through systematic land revenue surveys, as exemplified by Kulottunga I's comprehensive cadastral mapping in 1086 CE, which mirrored mandates for accurate taxation based on soil productivity and crop yields to fund military and infrastructural endeavors. This approach supported Chola naval expeditions and territorial consolidation, reflecting the treatise's emphasis on economic mobilization for power projection. Pre-Islamic Indian polities upheld the Mauryan model's causal logic of centralized realism, wherein —encompassing wealth accumulation and strategic maneuvering—took precedence over bhakti-driven devotionalism during existential threats, as rulers invoked pragmatic statecraft to preserve against fragmentation or invasion. This endurance manifested in enduring fiscal and intelligence apparatuses that prioritized empirical control over , sustaining imperial cohesion from the Gangetic plains to southern domains.

Representations in Literature and Media

The play , attributed to and dated to around the 8th century CE, portrays Chanakya as a central employing cunning and deception to consolidate Chandragupta Maurya's power, such as by stealing the signet ring of the antagonist to forge incriminating documents. This drama dramatizes Chanakya's political maneuvers against the remnants of the Nanda dynasty and rival counselors, emphasizing his strategic acumen in outmaneuvering foes without direct confrontation. In modern fiction, Ashwin Sanghi's 2010 novel interweaves a historical of Chanakya's vengeful orchestration of Chandragupta's rise against a tyrannical king with a parallel contemporary storyline of political manipulation in , depicting Chanakya as a cold, calculating driven by personal vendetta. The work attributes aphorisms and tactics reminiscent of the to Chanakya, often simplifying complex into dramatic, revenge-fueled plots that romanticize his infallibility. Indian television has prominently featured Chanakya in historical dramas, such as the 47-episode series Chanakya (1991–1992), written and directed by Chandraprakash Dwivedi, which fictionalizes events from circa 340 BCE onward, portraying him as the architect of the Maurya Empire through mentorship and intrigue. He appears as a pivotal mentor figure in other series like Chandragupta Maurya, where his role amplifies legendary elements of empire-building. These portrayals frequently exhibit hagiographic tendencies, elevating Chanakya to an omniscient strategist while downplaying the ruthless pragmatism chronicled in primary sources, reflecting a cultural bias toward nationalist hero-worship that conflates historical advisor with mythical overlord.

Relevance to Contemporary Realism

The Arthashastra's framework of political realism posits an anarchic international order where states must relentlessly pursue power through strategic alliances, espionage, and economic control to ensure survival and expansion, a perspective that aligns with contemporary realist theories emphasizing national interest over moral imperatives. Kautilya's Mandala theory, delineating circles of potential enemies and allies based on geographic and power proximities, applies directly to modern geopolitics, such as India's balancing acts in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue against China's regional assertiveness, where empirical assessments of threat capabilities dictate policy rather than ideological affinities. This causal approach prioritizes intelligence primacy, with the text's detailed protocols for spy networks—categorized into wandering ascetics, merchants, and poisoners—mirroring the foundational role of agencies like the CIA or RAW in preempting hybrid threats amid globalization's diffusion of power. Economic sovereignty emerges as a core tenet, advocating state intervention in , taxation, and to fortify resilience against external dependencies, pertinent in an era where supranational institutions impose regulatory harmonization that can erode domestic autonomy. For instance, the Arthashastra's emphasis on monopolizing key commodities and punishing economic sabotage informs contemporary strategies like India's initiative, which counters import vulnerabilities exposed during supply chain disruptions in 2020-2022, prioritizing prosperity through over unfettered . Such principles reject equity mandates in agreements that mandate concessions weakening strategic industries, instead favoring pragmatic tariffs and subsidies to sustain readiness, as evidenced by protectionist shifts in U.S. policy under the 2018-2020 trade wars. The text's skepticism toward ungrounded critiques utopian foreign policies that fail empirical tests, particularly in post-colonial contexts where leaders pursued non-aligned or pan-regional visions detached from internal power dynamics, leading to institutional collapses. In , for example, post-1960 independence states like Congo and adopted idealistic or socialist equity models ignoring tribal realignments and , resulting in over 200 coups and GDP per capita stagnation below $2,000 annually by 2020, underscoring the perils of prioritizing redistributive mandates over security hierarchies. Realism, as distilled in the , counters this by subordinating prosperity to power consolidation, warning that equity-driven interventions—such as without governance reforms—perpetuate fragility, as seen in the 50% default rate among low-income borrowers from 2000-2023.

References

  1. https://www.worldhistory.org/Kautilya/
  2. https://archive.org/details/ancientworld27000000unse/page/128/mode/1up
  3. https://www.worldhistory.org/Arthashastra/
  4. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/kautilya.asp
  5. https://swarajyamag.com/culture/how-kautilyas-arthashastra-shaped-the-telling-of-ancient-indian-history
  6. https://www.dollsofindia.com/library/chanakya/
  7. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/journal-of-defence-studies/kautilyas-arthashastra-and-chanakya-niti
  8. https://puratattva.in/the-mauryas-part-2/
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236222892_Chanakya_and_Chandra-gupta_Maurya_The_affair_of_a_companionship
  10. https://archive.org/stream/inscriptions-of-the-early-kadambas/Gai%201996_djvu.txt
  11. https://www.thestudyias.com/blogs/chanakya-kautilya-political-thoughts/
  12. https://www.sanskritebooks.org/2009/06/mudrarakshasa-of-visakhadatta-sanskrit-drama-with-english-translation/
  13. https://www.varnam.org/2018/01/04/mudrarakshasa-by-vishakadatta/
  14. https://iipa.org.in/upload/english.pdf
  15. https://www.schandillia.com/p/kautilya-conundrum
  16. https://historum.com/t/was-chanakya-an-actual-historical-figure.138138/
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-the-arthasastra/arthasastra-historiography/2D708586C53CDAF8CB73CB2E50EAD90C
  18. https://moolnivasi.medium.com/was-chanakya-the-real-author-of-arthashastra-d3809122d9cc
  19. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/j03w2o/how_reliable_is_the_claim_by_trautmann_and/
  20. https://www.saraswatiias.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/arthshastra-final.pdf
  21. https://tiaspg.tecnia.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Arthashastra_textbook.pdf
  22. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2404337.pdf
  23. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/saptanga-theory-of-kautilya
  24. https://www.shivajicollege.ac.in/sPanel/uploads/econtent/66c1b1900859b291df69f17ffced09ae.pdf
  25. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/tutaj/article/download/74071/56714/214617
  26. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019423.pdf
  27. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/podcasts/kautilya-arthashastra-ancient-realism-great-strategists-episode-3/
  28. https://polsci.institute/indian-political-thought-l/espionage-kautilya-arthashastra-intelligence/
  29. https://enrouteindianhistory.com/the-arthasastras-guide-to-espionage/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371685194_ECONOMIC_GOVERNANCE_AND_PUBLIC_FINANCE_IN_KAUTILYA%27S_ARTHASHASTRA
  31. https://www.hindukanyacollege.com/post/searching-roots-of-modern-economics-from-kautilya-s-arthashastra
  32. https://theintactone.com/2024/09/18/kautilyas-economic-contribution/
  33. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/84768/1/Unit-8.pdf
  34. https://www.sriramsias.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/kautilyas-rajamandala-theory-and-its-contemporary-relevance/
  35. https://www.ijirset.com/upload/october/76_Kanchan.pdf
  36. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/40432
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-the-arthasastra/introduction/52D0141791264EA131DE4337F8DDC6C2
  38. https://dokumen.pub/kautilya-and-the-arthastra-a-statistical-investigation-of-the-autorship-and-evolution-of-the-text.html
  39. https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Arthashastra
  40. https://www.vifindia.org/print/7892
  41. https://books.google.com/books/about/Kau%25E1%25B9%25ADilya_and_the_Artha%25C5%259B%25C4%2581stra.html?id=v3iDAAAAMAAJ
  42. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1561/social-political--economic-landscapes-in-kautilyas/
  43. https://www.vedantu.com/biography/chanakya-biography
  44. https://www.educba.com/chanakya/
  45. https://prasun123.wordpress.com/2020/07/04/chanakya-dhana-nanda/
  46. http://kuntamukkalaprabhakar.blogspot.com/2011/06/wrath-of-chanakya.html
  47. https://www.sawanonlinebookstore.com/humiliation-of-chanakya/?srsltid=AfmBOooMubSQDnowOCNkAh7aIULf6phU09B48RhgJSVKf38RJSgn6HMY
  48. https://www.sankalpindia.net/book/chanakyas-untied-tuft-hair-story-behind-it
  49. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-famous-oath-of-Chanakya-1
  50. https://bharateeyavahini.medium.com/chanakya-the-legend-and-the-myth-0eeb031c61a0
  51. https://kathakhyana.wordpress.com/2021/08/04/legend-of-chanakya-and-chandragupta/
  52. https://ancientindians.org/chandragupta-maurya-the-first-historical-emperor-of-india/
  53. https://internationaljournalofresearch.com/2020/07/26/chanakya-the-mastermind-of-united-india/
  54. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/chandragupta-maurya-0015449
  55. https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesFarEast/India_IronAge_Mauryas01.htm
  56. https://www.sankalpindia.net/book/poisoning-king
  57. https://devdutt.com/chanakyas-ritual-suicide/
  58. https://www.varnam.org/2009/04/07/the-death-of-chanakya/
  59. https://ancientales.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/birth-of-bindusara-and-death-of-chanakya/
  60. https://www.askprep.com/blog/administration-of-the-mauryan-empire-a-model-of-ancient-governance/
  61. https://ijfans.org/uploads/paper/905bec22b5224fc553c9df1a0c79bd11.pdf
  62. https://www.sankalpindia.net/book/chanakyas-end-bizzare-death
  63. https://chanakyasneeti.quora.com/What-is-the-most-authentic-source-to-read-or-know-about-Chanakya
  64. https://kathakhyana.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-legend-of-chanakya-and-chandragupta-buddhist-version/
  65. https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Chanakya
  66. https://prasun123.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/buddhist-traditions-on-chanakya-chandragupta/
  67. https://jainworld.jainworld.com/JWEnglish/Vardhaman.pdf
  68. https://prasun123.wordpress.com/2020/11/27/jain-traditions-on-chanakya-and-chandragupta/
  69. https://devdutt.com/how-jains-described-chanakya-and-chandra-gupta-maurya/
  70. https://nios.ac.in/media/documents/385-Natyakala/English/Pr/Ch-6.pdf
  71. https://blog.dharma-renaissance.org/history/complete-mudrarakshasa-analysis-discover-chanakya-rakshasa-statecraft-and-essential-dharma/
  72. https://ignited.in/index.php/jasrae/article/download/10913/21629/54037
  73. https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10154237896991675.pdf
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396371349_Date_of_Sandracottus_Alexander_and_his_contemporaries
  75. https://scroll.in/article/858304/in-the-21st-century-what-do-we-want-more-the-artha-of-chanakya-or-the-dharma-of-ram-rajya
  76. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_858-4.pdf
  77. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kautilya-arthashastra/d/doc365597.html
  78. https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ECON301-1.3.pdf
  79. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/nitiprakasika-critical-analysis/d/doc1147831.html
  80. https://pubadmin.institute/administrative-thinkers/kautilya-architect-of-arthashastra
  81. https://www.historyjournal.net/article/393/7-4-15-267.pdf
  82. https://sobrief.com/books/the-arthashastra
  83. https://drgeorges.net/wp-content/uploads/4-GMH-Arthashastra-nm.pdf
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339822474_POLITICAL_PRAGMATISM_AND_ETHICS_IN_KAUTYLA%27S_ARTHASHASTRA_CONTRADICTION_OR_COMPLEMENTARITY
  85. https://www.academia.edu/100044269/Defining_Diplomacy_through_Kautilyas_Arthashastra
  86. https://medium.com/%40therationalist/chanakyas-teachings-pragmatism-power-and-controversy-in-ancient-statecraft-985fb0d97a3e
  87. https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2509652.pdf
  88. https://www.anantaajournal.com/archives/2023/vol9issue2/PartB/9-2-35-293.pdf
  89. https://www.idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/08-jds-19-2-2025-Kajari-Kamal.pdf
  90. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/5/28701.pdf
  91. https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijps/v3-i1/5.pdf
  92. https://www.ijfmr.com/research-paper.php?id=28701
  93. https://www.academia.edu/19018148/A_comparison_between_Kautilya_s_Arthashastra_and_Machiavelli_s_The_Prince
  94. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=75066
  95. https://www.isec.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/WP-589-Anil-Kumar-V-Final.pdf
  96. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauryan-Empire
  97. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/early-indian-empires/a/the-maurya-and-gupta-empires
  98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337819891_A_critical_comparison_and_contrast_of_Machiavelli%27s_The_Prince_Kautilya%27s_Arthashastra_and_Han_Fei_Tzu%27s_basic_writings_on_the_advice_regarding_good_government
  99. https://www.studocu.com/in/messages/question/9329934/critical-analysis-of-kautilya-theory-of-statecraft
  100. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2439040979704849/posts/3847748895500710/
  101. https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Arthashastra_or_The_Playbook_of_Material_Gain_Prag?id=AQAAAEByyCCIQM&hl=en_US
  102. https://open.substack.com/pub/rakeshpsheth/p/chanakya-in-todays-times?r=5hjrtk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
  103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390092053_Ethics_Realpolitik_and_Strategy_A_Brief_Comparison_of_Kautilya_with_Machiavelli_and_Clausewitz
  104. https://www.drishtiias.com/mains-practice-question/question-8604/pnt
  105. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/vol1-issue1/Ser-1/I01014851.pdf
  106. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldcivilization/chapter/centralization-in-the-maurya-empire/
  107. https://polsci.institute/indian-political-thought-l/kautilyas-arthashastra-political-realism/
  108. https://politicalsciencesolution.com/kautilyas-realpolitik-the-art-of-statecraft-and-power/
  109. https://idsa.in/system/files/monograph20.pdf
  110. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/lady-shri-ram-college-for-women/bahons-sanskrit/authorship-of-the-arthashastra-kautilya-vs-multiple-contributors/126407346
  111. https://www.granthaalayahpublication.org/Arts-Journal/ShodhKosh/article/download/2057/1778/16958
  112. https://www.templepurohit.com/arthasastra/
  113. https://pranavpatel.co/combating-corruption-in-governance-timeless-insights-from-kautilyas-arthashastra/
  114. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jef/papers/vol5-issue3/E0533235.pdf
  115. https://edukemy.com/blog/corruption-causes-misuse-of-government-treasury-administrative-inefficiency-and-obstruction-in-the-path-of-national-development-discuss-kautilyas-views-150-words10-marks/
  116. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/5/27364.pdf
  117. https://neojournals.com/index.php/nsprj/article/download/9/7/7
  118. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/3/22624.pdf
  119. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/journal-of-defence-studies/a-comparison-of-kamandakas-nitisara-and-kautilyas-arthashastra-statecraft-diplomacy-and-warfare
  120. https://blogs.icrc.org/religion-humanitarianprinciples/hindu-nitishastra-and-the-rules-of-war/
  121. https://www.iipa.org.in/GyanKOSH/posts/evolution-of-indian-administration-and-philosophical-constitutional-framework-of-government
  122. https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/kautilyas-arthasastra-as-a-manual-of-empire-building
  123. https://indiafoundation.in/articles-and-commentaries/ancient-indian-knowledge-systems-and-their-relevance-today-with-an-emphasis-on-arthasastra/
  124. https://www.journalofpoliticalscience.com/uploads/archives/6-2-16-755.pdf
  125. https://varnam.substack.com/p/masterminds-and-manipulations-analyzing
  126. https://prepp.in/news/e-492-mudrarakashasa-vishakhadatta-ancient-india-history-notes
  127. https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/canakya-character
  128. https://anuradhagoyal.com/chanakyas-chant-by-ashwin-sanghi/
  129. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34117704
  130. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389593/
  131. https://www.poojn.in/post/24779/chanakya-in-popular-culture-movies-series-and-books
  132. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374840867_Critical_study_on_Mandal_theory_of_Kautilya%27s_Arthashastra_and_modern_geopolitical_realism
  133. https://ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2210014.pdf
  134. https://www.hoover.org/research/perils-international-idealism
  135. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242100022_The_Failure_of_America%27s_Post-Cold_War_Foreign_Policy_From_the_Persian_Gulf_to_the_Gulf_of_Guinea
  136. https://humanityjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/7.1.hodge_.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.