Kautilya: Theory of State

YORIICHI TSUGIKUNI

Abstract
Kautilya's Arthasastra (4th century B.C.) is one of the most influential treatise
in Political Science in the Indian Civilization. This work deals with virtually all
aspects of governance in a monarchical state. In the Indian philosophy, the
objective of every being is the pursuit of dharma. State, a human artifact, is
constituted to get the human race out of the state of nature. State enables the
citizens to follow their respective dharma and to enjoy private property rights.
King is viewed as a protector of dharma, but not the sole interpreter of it.
There is separation between secular and ecclesiastical power. State has many
autonomous associations and guilds in its jurisdiction and the ensuing
polycentric arrangements checks the rise of absolute power. Arthasastra
visualizes a huge bureaucratic structure, a complex tax structure, and an
intricate intelligence system. This paper distils the kautilya’s theory of state.
INTRODUCTION

Republican form of governments were well established in ancient India. At the

time of the invasion of Alexander of Macedonia (4th century B.C.), there
existed a large number of independent Ganas (republics) like Agrasrenies in
the Indus valley, Kamboj in the west, Panchals in the north etc (Sen, 1920:Ch.3;
Ghoshal, 1923:2). Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra, was a product of this era.
He played the main role in defeating the forces of Alexander. Kautilya believed
that the Alexander's successful conquest of (a part of) India was due to the
absence of a strong centralized Indian empire. He was determined not to let
history repeat itself. Hence the Mauryan empire, which he was instrumental in
founding, was (relatively) centralized and very different from the then
prevailing republican systems. His treatise - Arthasastra, therefore, deals only
with the governance in a monarchical state.
Many western scholars have argued that the Hindu philosophy is anti-thetical
to the concept of a state. Max Muller (1859:31) has observed that " the Hindus
were a nation of philosophers. Their struggles were the struggles of thought,
their past, the problem of creation, their future, the problem of existence It
might therefore be justly said that India has no place in the political history of
the world ". Max Weber saw an absence of 'rational practical ethic' in
Hinduism. He believed that the rational natural science could not develop in
India since the Hindu civilization devalued the empirical world
However Vedic philosophy gives emphasis to both the material and the
spiritual aspects of the human being. The path of pravriti (enjoyment) and that
of nivriti (renunciation) are seen to complement each other (Ghoshal, 1923:7).
'Rational sciences' such as Mathematics were well developed in ancient India -
the concept of 'shunya' (zero) and the decimal system were invented by the
'buddhijivi (those who make a living from the use of brain power - intellectuals)
of the Vedic civilization.
The rationality ethic is the basis of many ancient dharmic texts. Treatise like
the Arthasastra advocate the application of reason to statecraft to such an
extent that many Occidental scholars have called Kautilya as the "Machiavelli
of India"

Origin of Arthasastra
Kautilya was from 'kutil gotra', hence the name Kautilya. Since he was born at
Chanaka and his father's name was also Chanaka, he came to be known as
Chanakya (Rao, 1958:3).
Kautilya's Arthasastra is a compendium of and commentary on the then
existing texts on polity and statecraft. Kautilya presented them in a coherent
and systematic manner and refined them on the basis of his enormous
experience as the Chief Minister in the court of Chandragupta Maurya.
There is a controversy regarding the authorship of Arthasastra. Many
Occidental scholars have argued that Kautilya could not have authored it as
many of the concepts in the treatise were practiced only in the later epochs. It
has been suggested that Kautilya is merely a pseudo name for a later author(s)
who belonged to the school of thought associated with Kautilya. These
contentions are disputed by Indian scholars who point out that many of the
concepts used by Kautilya are in fact associated with only the fourth century
B.C.

Framework of Arthasastra
Arthasastra means the science (sastra) of wealth/earth/polity (artha). This
treatise is divided into sixteen books dealing with virtually every topic
concerned with the running of a state - taxation, law, diplomacy, military
strategy, economics, bureaucracy etc. Arthasastra advocates rational ethic to
the conduct of the affairs of the state. The emphasis is on codification of law
and uniformity of law throughout the empire.
The basis of good governance is knowledge and Arthasastra classifies
knowledge into four categories (Kautilya: Book 1, Ch. 2,3 & 4; Ghoshal,
1923:128-31).
1. Anvikasi (philosophy). This is considered to be the "lamp of all sciences".
2. Trayi (the three Vedas - Sama, Rig and Yajur). These texts establish the four
classes (varnas), and the four orders (ashrams).
3) Varta (economics, specifically agriculture, cattle breeding, and trade).
4. Dandaniti (science of government and politics).

Concept of the State

The institution of state is created to enable the individual to practise his/her
dharma and thus move towards the emancipation from the cycle of death-
rebirth. The condition of arajat (lawlessness) was viewed with distaste as it
militated against the practicing of dharma. There is reference in many ancient
Vedic texts to Matsya- Nyaya (Law of the Fish) which prevails in the state of
nature. Such a state is characterized by the absence of dharma and mamatava
(private property rights).State, which wields the instruments of coercion
(danda), is constituted to get the society out of this quagmire . Thus the state
enables two things - the practice of dharma and the bhog (enjoyment) of
private property rights. The Vedic state can be viewed as "qualified monism" in
which the autonomy and the diversity of the various social groups residing
within the boundaries of the state .Citizens had multiple loyalties - to the state
as well as recognized (Rao 1958:75 to the guild/association These
associations were knit together on the basis of two principles - military
imperative (strength in unity) and the principle of dharma (Rao, 1958:58).
These bodies had well specified rules of governance and a code of conduct.
They zealously guarded their autonomy and the King could not trample on
their customs and traditions. To ensure that the King and the associations do
not overstep their respective limits, the Superintendent of Accounts had to
codify the history, the customs, and the traditions of every association (Rao,
1958:66). However, the relationship between the individual body and the state
was not of competition or of turf protection. Both the bodies had a role to play
in enabling the citizen to follow his dharma. Interestingly, there was a
Department of Commissioners (Pradeshtarah) to protect the interest of the
individual in the association (Rao, 1958:74). Thus there was a mechanism to
protect the individual from the larger association (tyranny of the majority) and
the association from the State (tyranny of the Leviathan).
The King was looked upon an embodiment of virtue, a protector of dharma. He
too was governed by his dharma as any other citizen was. Thus if any actions of
the King went against the prevailing notion of dharma, associations and/or the
individual citizens were free to question him. King was not the sole interpreter
of dharma. In fact there was no specific institution (like the ecclesiastical
courts) vested with the authority of interpreting dharma. Every individual was
deemed competent to interpret it. This was an important factor in ensuring the
non-religious character of the Vedic state.

Elements of the State and the Role of the King

Arthasastra conceptualizes the state to have seven elements (saptanga)
(Kautilya: Book 6, Ch. 1; Sarkar, 1922:167-9; Verma, [1954] 74:80; Rao,
1958:82).
1. Swami (Monarch)
2. Amatya (Officials)
3. Janapada (Population and Territory)
4. Durga (Fort)
5. Kosa (Treasury)
6. Bala (Military)26
7. Surhit (Ally)

The word “Saptang” indicates seven limbs, constituents or elements. Together,

they constitute the State as an organism, “like a chariot composed of seven
parts fitted and subservient to one another” even Angas, Prakritis, or elements
were enumerated and elucidated by Kautilya for describing “the nature of the
State” in its totality. The prakritis are ordered according to the weight and
importance Kautilya assigns to them, the ruler (swamin) being the most
important state element, and the ally (mitra) being the least. The ordering
represents a logical and substantive architecture. It is the ruler who appoints
the ministers who, in turn, provide the institutional framework for the
territorial state, which is constitutive of the people (janapada). The first three
state factors contribute to the defence of the state (durga). The revenues
collected feeds the state treasury (kosa) which maintains the armed forces
(danda). The first six prakritis are the precondition for the conduct of a state’s
foreign policy. It is the health of the first six that determines the use of ally.
There is both a ‘logical verticality’ and a ‘horizontal entanglement’ between
the state factors.

1) Swami (The Sovereign King)-

Subscribing to monarchy as the ideal form of state, Kautilya has accorded to
the king “the highest place in the body- politic”. The Swami is the chief
executive head of the state and, is, thus “the consummation of all other
elements”. The word Swami is derived from the word swayam which refers to
self-determining. The Swami, therefore, becomes a living and animate
embodiment, which is subjected to be ruled by none, does not follow any
external rulings and is liable only to self- imposed restrictions. He is, thus, the
symbol of legal and political authority and power. Kautilya gives a
comprehensive list of four broad categories of qualities which constitute the
ideals of a Swami: (i) Qualities of an inviting nature; (ii) Qualities of intellect
and intuition; (iii) Qualities of enthusiasm and (iv) Qualities of self- restraint
and spirit. This categorization of qualities supplements the usual notion of
kingship being characterized by coercion and subordination of people. The king
was, thus, not to be a despot, exercising power through sheer military force,
but was to rule his subjects through affection. Accordingly, the duties and
functions that he is called upon to perform are of two types:
(i) Protective Functions- The king being the natural guardian and savior of his
people, Kautilya expects him to perform the following protective functions that
he should put down violence and maintain law and order, he should avert
dangers and command the army, to redress people’s grievances, to punish the
wrong- doers and to administer justice impartially and in accordance with
the sacred law, evidence, history and enacted law.
(ii) Promotive Functions- On the other hand, his promotive functions include
the following that he should promote the moral and material happiness and
welfare of his people, as in their happiness lies his happiness and in their
welfare his welfare, to enable them to pursue freely their independent
efforts in life, to maintain unity and solidarity, to reward virtue, to promote
agriculture, industry and arts, to regulate the means of livelihood, especially of
the laborers and artisans and to encourage education and help students. In the
exercise of these functions, Kautilya’s king was all- powerful. The limits of his
authority were imposed by the social and religious customs of his state.
King derived his power from three sources - Prabhushakti (the power of the
army and the treasury), Mantashakti (advice of wise men, specifically the
Council of Ministers) and Utsahshakti (charisma). Mantashakti was rated as the
most potent source followed by the prabhushakti and utsahshakti. Clearly
Kautilya believed in the importance of institutions (Council of Ministers) and
not of an individual (King) in influencing the destiny of the state.
Next to the King came the Mantri Parishad (Council of Minister). King was
enjoined to discuss each and every matter with the Parishad as it represented
the distilled wisdom of the society. Parishad had two levels - the Inner cabinet
and the Outer cabinet. The Inner cabinet had four members - The Chief
Minister, The Chief Priest, the Military Commander and the Crown Prince. The
Crown Prince was included to ensure smooth succession and to maintain
continuity in case of emergencies. The membership of the Outer cabinet was
not fixed in number. Invariably the heads of the prominent guilds were co-
opted in this body. This gave a representative character of the Parishad (Rao:
1958:86-7).

2) Amatya (The Minister)- In its narrow sense, the term Amatya or

Mantrin is used for the minister of the high grade. Kautilya describes an
elaborate system of recruitment of the Amatyas and other officials who were
to be morally and ethically pure, honest in financial matters and of good
character. The Amatyas were expected to be natural born citizens, persons of
noble origin, free from all vices, men of infallible memory, friendly nature,
wisdom, patience and endurance. The king was expected to appoint only wise
men to
these offices as they were to be his trusted advisers. These ministers were not
only to advise the king whenever their advice was sought; they were also to
maintain the secrecy of their deliberations.

3) Janapada (The People and The Territory)- This unique element of

Saptanga is the symbol of State, which stands for a “territorial society”. Here,
‘Jana’ denotes people and ‘Pada’ is a symbol of territory where these
inhabitants permanently reside. D.R. Bhandarkar and R.S. Sharma are of the
view that Kautilya’s Janapada includes not only territory but also population.
Kautilya prescribes the following requisites of a prosperous Janapada in
terms of territory: (i) accommodate and support people; (ii) defend the state
against enemies; (iii) find occupation of people; (iv) have manageable
neighbours; (v) provide pastures; (vi) have arable land, mines, forest and (vii)
provide good internal communication, i.e. rivers, roads, and outlet to sea.

4) Durga (Fortification)- Kautilya regarded fortification as essential for

the defense and protection of the state. He wanted the state to fortify the
territories from all sides. He has described four types of fortification which
include Audak, Paarvat, Dhannvana and Vana. Of these categories, the first
two are used for the protection of the territory and the remaining two are
used for the protection of the farmers. These fortifications, thus, would not
only protect the people and the capital, but would also be suitable for
fighting purposes, i.e. for both defensive and offensive purposes.

5) Kosha (The Treasury)- The flourishing economy is essential for

the existence of the State in all times and circumstances. That is probably why
the philosophers of Ancient India looked at treasury as an essential element of
the State. Though Kautilya wanted a prosperous treasury, he specifically
directed the king to earn the wealth of nation only by legitimate and
righteous means and in no way by unfair and immoral means. For the
collection of revenues, Kautilya suggested the following legitimate sources: (i)
various forms of land tax; (ii) duty levied on the sale of commodities in the
market; (iii) tax on imports and exports and (iv) miscellaneous taxes.

6) Danda (The Army or The Force)- Kautilya accepted a strong

and hereditary Kshatriya army, as the most important requisite of the state. He
insisted on the hereditary army, as it would not only be skilled, well-
contended and obedient to the king’s will, but also be free from duplicity. Such
an army would serve both the defensive and offensive purposes of the king.
Hence, it was obvious for Kautilya to pay great attention to the
maintenance and organization of the army. For instance, in Arthashastra, we
find him mentioning as many as half a dozen heads of departments namely the
incharge of the armory, naval forces, cavalry, elephants, chariots and infantry.

7) Mitra (The Allies)- Having realized that “political isolation means

death”, Kautilya proceeded to consider the Mitra or the ally as a vital factor.
Kautilya recognizes two kinds of allies, namely Sahaja and Kritrima. The Sahaja
or natural ally is the one whose friendship is derived from the times of King’s
father and grandfather and who is situated close to the territory of the
immediately neighbouring enemy. On the other hand, the Kritrima or the
acquired ally is the one whose friendship is specially resorted to for the
protection of wealth and life. Kautilya, however, preferred an ally who is
traditional, permanent, disciplined, and enthusiastic and from whom the
possibility of opposition or rebellion is minimum.
Kautilya’s concept of ‘State’ is, vividly reflected in his description of angas or
elements of the state. He did not specifically define the term ‘State’, as he was
essentially a man of action, and not a theorist. His concern for and emphasis
on the internal and external security of state was to save humanity from a sort
of Hobbesian state of nature. The Saptang theory is a vivid manifestation of
Kautilya’s deeper understanding of not only the political nature of man, but
also the functioning of his political institutions, especially the state.
Kautilya glorified the State and viewed the office Kingship to be the
embodiment of all legal and moral authority associated with the institution of
the state (Rao, 1958:50). The King was an intrinsic part of the social order and
by the nature of his office, a defender of that order. However King was to
regard himself as an agent of the people and had to abide by his dharma as
laid out in the Sastras. The institution of the Kingship was sacred but not the
person who happens to hold it (Sarkar

Types of State
At the time of Kautilya there were some types of state, which are this following
way;
State: Such state in which the rule was based on conflict. Kautilya says that this
conflict is natural because of heredity. In this two persons might be two
brothers or the father and the son. He suggested that the problem could be
solved by the minister’s suggestions.
Vairajya : Such type of state was not appropriate for people, because of in
such conditions a king could exploit the people by ruling on them.
Dualism (sangh rajya) : There was miniature of republic states. These states
had adopted dualism. These were independent and self-reliance but could not
face the larger enemies. In such dualistic states king was not permanent and
used to get together at critical occasions.In his time Mugdh was also a dualistic
state. Therefore, he presented his views formaking strong these states.
Integration method was good for these states. He says that the kingshould
appoint detective for getting information, he (the king) should do everything
with his best approach and ability.

Objectives and Functions of Kautilya’s State

In Kautilya’s economics state is the central point. The objective of a state not
only to secure but also welfare works for people. For completing objectives he
integrated many institutions. The objectives are to secure people, to preserve
them from natural calamities, to kill enemies’ detective who may be harmful
for the state.
The state, thus according to Kautilya, must be base on sound economic
foundations, so as to enables men to realize the aims of his life, , to lessen the
dependence of the community on the outside world, to be in a position to help
others sections of humanity is distress, and thereby to ensure on existence
conducive to the happiness of men in this life and paving the way to a brighter
beyond.” According to Kautilya state is not only a materialistic but a spiritual
also. The objective of a state is not only to manage religious, means and work
for people but to create such situation also such like, without colour, creed,
and caste.

Duties of the Kings

Kautilya did not subscribe to the theory of 'Divine Origin of the Monarch'. King
was not the vicar of the god. Monarchy, in his view, was a human institution
and therefore manned by a human being. However the king was expected to
be more than a mere human being since he was the protector of the dharma
of the whole society. He had to observe an exemplary conduct himself. He had
no private life and all his actions were subject to public scrutiny (Rao,
1958:122).The King had to follow a his rayja dharma. This included a thorough
knowledge of the four branches of knowledge (Ghoshal,1923:139). The King
was expected to display Atma vrata (self-control) and for this he had to
abandon the 'six enemies - kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), mana
(vanity), mada (haughtiness), and harsha (overjoy) (Kautilya:Book 1, Ch. 7; Rao,
1958:56). Clearly Kautilya expected very high standards from the rulers. This is
in contrast to the realistic model of the citizen on which he based so many of
his laws.
Taxation
Kautilya visualized a 'dharmic social contract' between the King and the
citizens. Taxes were levied for maintenance of the social order and for the
state- run welfare In case of aggression by an outside agency, the janapads
(districts)apparatus. could ask for tax remission as the King had failed in his
duty to protect the citizens (Rao, 1958:213).
Kautilya realized the critical role of the tax system for ensuring the economic
well- being of the society. The hallmark of his tax system was 'certainty' - of
time, of rate and of the mode of payment (Rao, 1958:213). Stability in the tax
regime was an important factor in ensuring active trade and commerce in the
Mauryan empire. This in turn strengthened the revenue base of the state and
enabled it to maintain a huge standing army and the welfare apparatus.
State was overzealous in collection of taxes and tapped virtually every source.
Citizens paid a toll-tax. Farmers (household as the unit of assessment) had to
pay one sixth of the produce as the land tax. There was a land census at
periodic intervals and land records were scrupulously maintained. This data
base enabled the assessment of the taxable capacity of the household. Traders
had to pay one tenth the value of the merchandize as tax. There was an entry
tax to enter the fort, tax on use of roads and waterways, and for getting a
passport. Even the hermits living in the forest had to part with one sixth of the
grain gleaned by them as they too needed the protection of the King (Ghoshal,
1923:133-4). Service industry was also taxed - actors, dancers, soothsayers,
prostitutes, and auctioneers were subjected to taxation. Pilgrims had to pay a
Yatra Vetna (pilgrimage tax). Citizens had to pay a tax (Pranaya Kriya) for the
acts of benevolence (Rao, 1958:209-210).

System of law
Kautilya did not view law to be an expression of the free will of the people.
Thus sovereignty - the authority to make laws, did not vest with citizens. Laws
were derived from four sources - dharma (scared law), vyavhara (evidence),
charita (history and custom), and rajasasana (edicts of the King). In case of
conflict amongst the various laws, dharma was supreme. The ordering of the
other laws was case specific (Kautilya:Book 3, Rajasasana ordered the
relationship between the three major social groupings - the citizen, the
association, and the state. The constitutional rules at the state level were
specified in the rajasasana but the constitutional rules at the level of the
association were to be decided by the members of the association. The
collective choice and the operational level rules of the association were also
decided by the members of the association though the state did promulgate
laws to safeguard the individual member from the tyranny of the majority in
the association.
Arthasastra outlines a system of civil, criminal, and mercantile law. For
example the following were codified : a procedure for interrogation, torture,
and trial, the rights of the accused, what constitutes permissible evidence, a
procedure for autopsy in case of death in suspicious circumstances, what
constitutes defamation and procedure for claiming damages, valid and invalid
contracts

Bureaucracy
Kautilya had organized a huge and intricate network of bureaucracy to manage
the Mauryan empire. This also reflected the centralized character of the state.
Bureaucracy had thirty divisions each headed by Adhyakshas (Chiefs).
Reporting relationships were clearly specified.
Kautilya had visualized the necessity of state provision of public goods which
strengthened trade and commerce. The bureaucracy was involved in the
provision of three of such goods - the 'quality control machinery', the system
of currency, and the system of 'weights and measures'. Quality control was a
revolutionary concept for that era. This suggests that Mauryan empire had an
active trading sector and the buyers (domestic and exports) were discerning.
As a mark of quality, merchandise had to be marked with the Abhigyan Mudra
(state stamp) in sindura (vermillion). Counterfeiting was strictly punished (Rao,
1958:218).
Bureaucrats received a fixed pay and were also eligible for state subsidized
housingThis is an example of Kautilya's deep understanding of (Rao,
1958:220).statecraft as even in later centuries (in other empires), officials were
expected to compensate themselves by retaining a part of revenue extracted
from the people (a kind of ad-valorem compensation). The ad-valorem
arrangement provided an incentive for the official to squeeze the tax payer as
much as possible (a short term on the part of the bureaucrat) as the
bureaucratic tenure was not hereditary. Kautilya, given his experience as a
Chief Minister, probably realized the peril of such an (ad valorem) arrangement
and created a fixed pay compensation structure for the bureaucracy.36
Huge bureaucracy invariably result in a principal-agent problem. Kautilya
sought to tackle this issue through three means - elaborately monitored
standard operating procedures (SOPs), spies/intelligence organization, and
decentralization of authority. SOPs minimized the room for subjective
interpretation of the rules by the bureaucrats. The superiors carefully
monitored the performance of the officials under their control.37
However this system of close monitoring must have resulted in enormous
transaction costs. It was therefore supplemented by the intelligence
organization which kept a watch on the corrupt practices of the officials. The
exploits of the spies in catching corrupt officials were given wide publicity and
this made the officials careful in their dealings with the citizens. Another
measure to keep a check on the bureaucracy was decentralized-polycentric
political arrangements which resulted in empowering of the local guilds. Thus
the bureaucrats had to reckon with an effective local power center who were
aware of the royal edicts and prevented the bureaucrat from substituting
his/her objective function for the royal edict. It is interesting that Kautilya did
not take recourse to ideology to discipline the bureaucracy

System of Spies
Kautilya was a product of the age of intrigue. He defeated Alexander of
Macedonia and the Nanda king (most powerful Indian empire of that era) on
the basis of military prowess and political craft. According to Kautilya, the King
has to guard against intrigues from internal and external sources. Internal
sources include the inner cabinet, the autonomous associations/ guilds,
religious orders and the personality of the king himself (atma-dosa). External
sources refers to hostile foreign powers.
The intelligence apparatus was very elaborate and had infiltrated virtually
every institution and profession - especially the institutions of mass
participation like religion. Spies could be under the following guises - kapatika
chhatra (fraudulent discipline), udasthita (recluse), grihapalka (householder),
vaidehaka (merchant), tapas (an ascetic practicing austerities), satri (a
classmate), tikshna (a fireband), rasada (a poisoner) and a bhikshuki (a
mendicant woman) (Kautilya, Book 1, Ch. 11). Monks and the sanghas
(association of monks) were actively used for the purpose of gathering
intelligence. Kautilya even suggested that to assassinate a rival King, weapons
may be kept inside an idol and be used when the King comes for worship. Thus
Kautilya did not hesitate to use the institution of religion for the purpose of
statecraft. For him, the most important condition for the practice of dharma
was not the institution of religion but the institution of the state.
Intelligence operations were greatly aided by the maintenance of a 'national
citizen register' and a system of passport and visa. Register was updated by
regularly conducted censuses and by the compulsory registration of the births
and deaths (Rao, 1958:209).

Conclusion
Arthasastra is a very comprehensive treatise on the governance in a
monarchical Vedic state. Kautilya had a rational approach to governance and
statecraft. He conceptualized the state and the office of the kingship to be
human artifacts. Also his model of the human being was very realistic.
However he expected super human qualities from a 'human' King.
Chandragupta, Bindusar and Ashoka matched this ideal but their successors
could not. Clearly the system of checks and balances amongst the king, the
associations and the citizens worked well as long as the King wanted it to work.
The ideal society of the Arthasastra did last for a couple of centuries. However
the successful Muslims invasion in the 8th century indicated a serious (military)
deficiency in the 'Hindu' society. The vision of Kautilya was a creation of a
strong and prosperous Vedic order so the foreigner invasions (like that of
Alexander) could be repulsed. The success of the Muslim invasion suggested
that either the governance by the 'Hindu' Kings was not according to the tenets
of the Arthasastra or the Arthasastra philosophy itself had become antiquated.
Probably both were true. Kings had certainly deviated from the Vedic ideal of a
'dharmic king' - the 'servant' of the people and the protector of the dharmic
order. Varna system had degenerated into a caste system. The rational and
dharmic order of the Arthasastra had been reduced to only a shadow of its
past glory. Muslim invasion probably found an easy target in a moribund order.
THE END
 REFERENCES
1) Aseem Prakash, 11&13.10.1993, State and Statecraft in Kautilya's
Arthasastra, Digital Library of the Commons, retrieved from
State and statecraft in kautilyas arthasastra.pdfdlc.dlib.indiana.edu
2) Dr Jyothi Prabha, 2019, CC- 5 : HISTORY OF IDEAS UNIT- 1: HISTORY OF
IDEAS, ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL, retrieved from
https://mrmclnmu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/kautilya-
converted.pdf.pdf
3) Rajeev, 1.01.2012, KAUTILYA’S VIEWS ON ORIGIN AND NATURE OF
STATE IN ARTHASASTRA, International Journal of Computing and
Corporate Research (IJCCR) , retrieved from
https://www.ijccr.com/January2012/20.pdf
4) Prakash Menon and Kajari Kamal, 27.06.2020, Viewing Contemporary
India Through the Kautilyan Lens, The wire.com, retrieved from
https://thewire.in/politics/viewing-contemporary-india-through-the-
kautilyan-lens