You are on page 1of 18

Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla

2019-20
Assignment

on

Comparison between Kautilya’s Saptanga State


and Modern State

Course code :- BA 201

Course title :- Political Science - II

Submitted by :- Submitted to :-

Bhart Bhardwaj Dr. Ved Prakash

Course :- B.A. LL.B.(2nd sem) (Assistant Prof. Pol. Sci. )

Roll no. :- 1020181935


Acknowledgement :-
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of many friends and our respectful
professor Dr. Ved Prakash. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of
them.

I am highly indebted to HPNLU for their guidance and constant supervision


as well as for providing necessary information regarding the report & also for
their support in completing the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents & member of


HPNLU for their kind co-operation and encouragement which help me in
completion of this project.

I would also like to thank all my friends in developing the project and people
who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

- Bhart Bhardwaj
Contents

S. No. Contents Page


1. State and its meaning 4
2. Kautilya and the state 4
3. Kautilya Saptanga state 5 – 11
i) Swami
ii) Amatya
iii) Janpad
iv) Durgh
v) Kosha
vi) Danda
vii) Mitra
4. Modern State 12
5. Elements of Modern State 12 – 16
i) Territory
ii) Population
iii) Government
iv) Sovereignty
6. Relevance of Kautilya’s theory 16 – 17
and Modern state
7. Conclusion 17 – 18
KAUTILYA’S THEORY OF STATE:

Nature of State:

The state of ‘nature’ is imagined to be one of total anarchy, in which ‘might was right’.
When people were oppressed by ,the law of the Matsyanyaya fish, according to which the
bigger fish swallows the smaller ones they selected Manu– son of Vivasvat the king. It was
settled that the king should receive one-sixth of the grain and one-tenth of merchandise and
gold, as his due. It was the revenue which made it possible for the king to ensure the security
and prosperity of his subjects. People agreed to pay taxes and he ruled by one person in order
that they might be able to enjoy well-being and security. In Kautilya’s Arthasastra, there is no
explicit theory of social contract as laid down by the contractualists. Neither does Kautilya use
the contract to make the king all powerful.

(A) The Origin of Kingship:

Kautilya regarded state as an essentially human, not a divine, institution. This was in keeping
with the early Vedic view which looked at monarch essentially as a human being, rather than
a divine person. The theoretical aspect of the State did not fall within the philosophical domain
of Kautilya, as he was not a political theorist. Yet, his stray reflections on the origin of State to
help us have a better understanding of his concept of State in its totality. And, the almost casual
mention of these ideas in his. Arthasastra is hardly surprising, as these ideas had already gained
currency during the Mauryan period.

Kautilya was disturbed to find that people had to suffer the anarchy of Matsyanyaya, the
proverbial‘ judicial’ tendency of the large fish to swallow the smaller ones. He thought that it
was primarily to get rid of this Hobbesian kind of a situation which led people select Manu, the
Vaivasvata, as their first king. While selecting their king, the subjects expected him not only
to ensure their‘ safety and security” and ‘punish” people with anarchic tendencies, but also to

‘maintain individual and social order’’. For this purpose, they empowered him to collect
property taxes or royal dues equivalent to one-sixth of the grain grown and one-tenth of

merchandise”.

The king was also authorized to act at once, as Indra and Yama acted, while dispensing rewards
and punishment. And, acting as such, he could ‘never be despised”. The prevailing view was
that if a subject disregarded the king, he would have to undergo not only political but
also divine punishment. Thus, to Kautilya, the king derived his authority to rule from those
who selected him for this office and paid him property tax or royal dues to enable him to fulfill
the duties and functions assigned to him. As such, Kautilya’s king commanded instant devotion
and loyalty of his subjects.

(B) The Organic State: The Saptanga Theory:

Kautilya builds tip his theory of the State as an organic entity on the basis of seven elements,
which he describes in his Arthasastra as Saptanga. The seven elements, despite being
enumerated separately, stand in the closest possible relation to one another and are in
themselves ‘mutually serviceable”. Together, they constitute the State as an organism, like a
chariot composed of seven parts fitted and subservient to one another”.

Though Kautilya likens the State to a Chariot, lie conceives it essentially as a living, not
a dead, organism in which the Swami (the king) is the spirit that regulates and guides the
remaining constituents of the both-politic. This harmony is essential not only to their own
existence, but also to that of the whole which they constitute together. Further, according to
Kautilya, of these seven elements, each subsequent element is inferior to the preceding ones.
Thus, the Swami or the King (first prakriti or element) becomes superior to the remaining
six elements. His righteousness and other qualities would result in the righteousness and
prosperity of other elements, whereas his vices would multiply the troubles and calamities of
the other elements. In this connection, it is to be noted that while Manu argues that various
elements could gain importance on different occasions, the Mahabharata considers all the
elements as supplementary to one another. To an extent, the organic theory of State finds
elaboration in the Ancient Greek Political Philosophy. For instance, while comparing the State
with the human body. Plato had argued that just as a cut in the finger causes pain in the body,
similarly injury of one organ creates problems for the other organs of the body-politic. Aristotle
was of the view that no organ and no individual has any value, if not considered in totality. For
instance, an arm is meaningless without the body. The Greek philosophers wanted to avert the
causes which endangered the unity and solidarity of the city-states, whereas Kautilya aimed at
comprehensiveness of Anvikshaki, Trayi, Vaarta and Dandaniti. Seven Angas, Prakritis, or
elements were enumerated and elucidated by Kautilya for describing “the nature of the
State” in its totality. As laid down in the first chapter of Arthasastra Sixth Book, entitled.
Mandala Yonah, these are:
(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 the chief executive head of the State and,
is, thus “the consumption of all other elements”.

He is not merely a feudatory chieftain, but a variable sovereign, owing allegiance to none. 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. Distinguished from Raja or Rajan,
Swami has the reflection of political Superior or sovereign. In the exercise of their functions,
Kautilya’s King was all-powerful. The limits of his authority were imposed by the social and
religious customs of his State which have existed from times immemorial and with which he
was required not to interfere. Further, the king was not to be despot exercising power through
sheer military force. Instead, he was to rule his subjects through affection. Kautilya puts great
emphasis on the devotion and loyalty of the subjects. Accordingly, he suggests that no king
should ever generate poverty, acquisitive greediness and disaffection among the people.
The qualities, requisite training and obligations of the King, as described by Kautilya, have
definite similarities with Plato’s Philosopher-King, and are equally relevant today as these were
during Kautilya’s time

(2) AMATYA (THE MINISTER):

The second elements of Saptanga, in its broad sense, incorporates modern government; its
organs like executive and legislature; and administrative structure of minister, secretaries,
administrators, heads of departments, councillors, bureaucrats, advisers etc. In its narrow sense,
the term Amatya or Mantrin is used for the minister of the highest grade. N.C. Bandyopadhyay
points out that it is not clear whether there was one mantrin or more, though some passages of
Arthasastra do contemplate the existence of more than one such minister. Kautilya describes
an elaborate system of recruitment of the Amatyas and other officials who were to be

1. Dharmopadashuddha (morally and ethically pure),


2. Arthopashuddha (honest in financial matters), and
3. Charitropashudda (of good or pure 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. Kautilya
was of the view that these ministers who have three-fourth of these qualities be considered
medium level ministers, but those who are in possession only of half of these are, in general
inferior. The King was expected to appoint only wise men to these offices as they were to be
his most 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. In fact,
administrative ability, knowledge of scriptures and higher character are the qualities essential
for the ministers everywhere and in every age.

(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 the symbol of territory where these inhabitants
permanently reside. Modern Western definition includes these two elements as separate and
exclusive elements, whereas Ancient Indian scholars considered these two as supplementary
or complimentary to each other.

Unlike Plato and Aristotle, Kautilya did not suggest any specific size of territory or population.
His emphasis was more on quality than quantity. In his order of things, the State occupied a
definite territory, which was the chief physical basis of existence. Kautilya prescribed the
following requisites of a prosperous. Janapada in terms of its territory:

1) Accommodate and support the people;

2) Defend the State against enemies;

3) Find occupation for the people;

4) Have manageable neighbours;

5) Be free from depredation of wild animals;

6) Provide pastures;

7) Have arable land, mines, forest;

8) Provide good internal communication, i.e. rivers, roads, and outlet to sea;

9) Produce varieties of merchandise, and

10) Be a repository of resources for the common good.


Bhandarkar selects only three of these characteristics as major features of the ideal territory.
He says that the “Janapada should be Shatru-Dveshi (hostile to the foe), Shakya, Samanta
(powerful enough to control the neighbouring kings), and Karmashila Karshah (inhabited by
agriculturists capable of toiling and moiling.

In so far as the population is concerned, Kautilya stressed the qualities or the character of the
people. He wanted the people to be energetic and industrious. They should also be Bhakta
Shuchi Manushya (people who are pure and devoted). They should not only have a patriotic
spirit, but also have hatred for the enemies. Repeatedly, Kautilya emphasized that loyalty of
the subjects is the greatest of all assets that a king could possess. Kautilya further suggested
that the subjects should not only have the tendency to pay their taxes, but also to undertake
punishment for violating laws and orders. They should have respect for the rule of law and the
government commanding popular support. The people should present a sort of unity in
diversity in as much as the State should have people of all castes, including men of the higher
orders. It was only the people with such qualities who would be able to make the Kautilyan
State not merely social and political, but also paternal.

(4) DURGA (FORTIFICATION):

Kautilya regarded fortification as essential for the defence 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:

1) Audak (surrounded by water),


2) Paarvat (built on the top of the hill),
3) Dhaanvana (built on barren or waste land), and
4) Vana (surrounded by forests).

In the first category are included those forts which are, built on islands surrounded by streams
of tanks and pools. In the second category are included the forts which are surrounded and
overladen by mountain rocks. In the third category come the forts built on barren or waste
lands. Under the fourth category come the forts which are surrounded by forests, swamps and
shrubs. 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 (vana pala). 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. Kautilya suggested that the fort should
be constructed by the king at a place where it can be constructed with minimum labour,
economically and easily. He should establish his capital at a central place, which should
become a centre of protection of wealth. Although the forts and castles of the time of Kautilya
today appear to be more of archaeological importance, they are as significant today in the
context of territorial aggressions and international conflicts, atomic bombs and missiles, as they
were in the times of Kautilya. Thus, Kautilya’s advice and scheme of watching a nation’s
territory and protecting it from aggression is as relevant today as it was in his times.

(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. They wanted the treasury to be always full with stocks of
gold, silver, diamonds and jewels, so that not only the routine affairs of the State are conducted
properly, but the king is also able to protect the people from natural calamities like floods and
famines. 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. Proper management of agriculture, trade and commerce also makes the
treasury prosperous. It helps the king not only to make the people prosperous, but also to control
and contain its enemies. For the collection of revenues, Kautilya suggested, the following
legitimate sources

1) Various forms of land tax;

2) Duty levied on the sale of commodities in the market;

3) Tax on imports and exports;

4) Road cess, canal cess, ferry dues, conveyance cess, tax on loads, tax on markets and fee
from passport;

5) Taxes received from artisans fishermen etc;

6) Taxes levied on prostitutes gambling houses, pubs, and slaughter houses;

7) Income from prosperities and monopolies belonging to the King;

8) Forced labour;

9) Fines through law courts;

10) Accidental income;


11) Interest on loan advances to the people; and

12) Miscellaneous taxes.

Kautilya emphasised that taxes must never be imposed suddenly and in extreme excess over
previous payments. Watchful of disturbances, Kautilya resorts to the analogy of fruits. He says,

“Just as fruits are gathered from a garden as often as they becomes ripe, so revenue shall be
collected as often as it becomes ripe. Collection of revenue or of fruits, when unripe, shall never
be carried on lest their sources may be injured, causing immense trouble”. Kautilya points out
that the people might migrate to a more favourable country, if troubled by unjust extortion.
Recommending deviation from legitimate means in emergencies, Kautilya acknowledged that
the people could be expected to pay extra and higher taxes. Kautilya lists a number of methods
by which the king can obtain extra funds. The king could have recourse to trickery and
assassination. He recommended that the king should explain the necessity to the people, but if
this does not bring in the required revenue, he may sell honours or positions, or if the danger
is very great, take away the wealth of corporations or heretics and temples. He may extort funds
from all sinful people as the sinful rich are the most rewarding. Thus, collection of additional
revenue in the wake of acute crisis, but in normal times, their proper and legitimate collection,
in proportion to tax-paying capacity of citizens, is also the criterion of taxation of modern
welfare governments, as was prescribed by Kautilya.

(6) DANDA (THE ARMY OR THE FORCE):

Like other philosophers of Ancient India, Kautilya also 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. It would not only protect the people, but also keep the enemy away. As far as possible,
soldiers should be drawn from the traditionally noble kshatriya families, so that they remain
loyal and are satisfied with the grants given to them by the State and are habitual of bearing
losses in property and person. Hence it was obvious for Kautilya to pay great attention to the
maintenance and organisation of the army. For instance, in Arthashastra, we find him
mentioning as many as half a dozen heads of departments, namely:

a) the aayudhaagaaraadhyaksha (in charge of the armoury);

b) the naavadhyaksha (in charge of the naval forces);


c) the ashvaadhyaksha (in charge of cavalry);

d) the hastvaadhyaksha (in charge of the elephants);

e) the rathaadhyaksha (in charge of the chariots); and

f) the pattyadhyaksha (in charge of the infantry).

(7) MITRA (THE ALLIES):

Having realised that ‘political isolation means death”. Kautilya proceeded to consider the Mitra
or the ally as a vital factor. In fact, it is the quality and quantity of the State’s allies that
determines its position in the political world. Kautilya recognises two kinds of allies, namely
Sahaja (or natural) and Kritrima (or acquired). 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. For instance, Hitler acquired the friendship of USSR at the outbreak of Second World
War through a non-aggression pact and terminated it in 1941 according to his own choice.
Kautilya, however, preferred an ally who is traditional, permanent, disciplined, and enthusiastic
and from whom the possibility of opposition or rebellion is minimum. He should help in times
of need and whenever the State is in danger. Instead of observing neutrality, he should
exemplify himself as his defender and protector. Ally, thus, should be in possession of six
requisite qualities: such as hereditary, permanent, manageable, supporter, eager to co-operate
and strong enough with Prabhu Shakti (intuitional), Mantra Shakti (intellectual) and Utsaaha
Shakti (enthusiastical) strength. Kautilya was of the view that the prudent king must strengthen
himself by the force of powerful allies, with whose active co-operation, he would be able to
put down foreign enemies, save and enrich his kingdom, and preserve the political equilibrium.
Kautilya, thus, furnishes us with full and complete definition of the State. The modern
constituents of the State, such as sovereignty, government, territory and population are covered
respectively by the elements of Swami, Amatya and Janapada in the Saptanga theory of the
State. In modern times, unless a State receives recognition of other States, its de jure status is
not established. This element in the modern States may be compared to Mitra (ally). Though
in the modern definition of the State, there is no place for army and taxation, these are covered
by the concept of sovereign power, which exercises the function of coercion and tax-collection.
4) Modern State and its meaning :-

Starting with the state, first of all we have to be familiar with the meaning of the term State.
The term State means condition like mental state, state of nature, state of health. But the state
in Political Science though backed by its various conditions means a particular group of people
organised together under a common goal with obedience to well defined principles.

Various intellectuals gave their own meanings of the State:-

Garner, defines state as a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently


occupying a definite proportion of territory, independent or so, of external control and
possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
obedience.

Aristotle defines state as :- state is the union of families and villages having for its end a perfect
and self-sufficient life by which we mean a happy and honourable life.

Definition given by Garner is considered to be the best because it includes all four essentials
of the State.

5) Elements of Modern State:-

A State stands identified with its four absolutely essential elements:

i) Population:

State is a community of persons. It is a human political institution. Without a population there


can be no State. Population can be more or less but it has to be there. There are States with very
small populations like Switzerland, Canada and others, and there are States like China, India
and others, with very large populations.

The people living in the State are the citizens of the State. They enjoy rights and freedom as
citizens as well as perform several duties towards the State. When citizens of another State are
living in the territory of the State, they are called aliens. All the persons, citizens as well as
aliens, who are living in the territory of the State are duty bound to obey the state laws and
policies. The State exercises supreme authority over them through its government.

There is no definite limit for the size of population essential for a State. However, it is
recognised that the population should be neither too large nor very small. It has to be within a
reasonable limit. It should be determined on the basis of the size of the territory of the State,
the available resources, the standard of living expected and needs of defence, production of
goods and supplies. India has a very large and fast growing population and there is every need
to check population growth. It is essential for enhancing the ability of India to register a high
level of sustainable development.

ii) Territory:

Territory is the second essential element of the State. State is a territorial unit. Definite territory
is its essential component. A State cannot exist in the air or at sea. It is essentially a territorial
State. The size of the territory of a State can be big or small; nevertheless it has to be a definite,
well-marked portion of territory.

States like Russia, Canada, U.S.A., India, China, Brazil and some others are large sized states
whereas Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Switzerland, Togo, Brundi and many others are
States with small territories. The whole territory of the state is under the sovereignty or supreme
power of the State. All persons, organisations, associations, institutions and places located
within its territory are under the sovereign jurisdiction of the State.

Further, it must be noted that the territory of the state includes not only the land but also, rivers,
lakes, canals inland seas if any, a portion of coastal sea—territorial waters or maritime belt,
continental shelf, mountains, hills and all other land features along with the air space above the
territory.

The territory of the state can also include some islands located in the sea. For example
Andaman & Nicobar and Daman and Diu are parts of India. State exercises sovereignty over
all parts of its territory. Ships of the State are its floating parts and Aero-planes are its flying
parts. Even a States can lease out its territory to another State e.g. India has given on lease the
Teen Bigha corridor to Bangladesh.
iii) Government:

Government is the organisation or machinery or agency or magistracy of the State which


makes, implements, enforces and adjudicates the laws of the state. Government is the third
essential element of the State. The state exercises its sovereign power through its government.

This sometimes creates the impression that there is no difference between the State and
Government. However it must be clearly noted that government is just one element of the State.
It is the agent or the working agency of the State. Sovereignty belongs to the State; the
government only uses it on behalf of the State.

Each government has three organs:


(1) Legislature—which formulates the will of State i.e. performs law-making functions;

(2) Executive— enforces and implements the laws i.e. performs the law-application functions;
and

(3) Judiciary—which applies the laws to specific cases and settles the disputes i.e. performs
adjudication functions.

Government as a whole is the instrument through which the sovereign power of the State gets
used.

In ancient times, the King used to perform all functions of the government and all powers of
governance stood centralized in his hands. Gradually, however, the powers of King got
decentralized and these came to be exercised by these three organs of the government:
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

Each of these three organs of the government carries out its assigned functions. Independence
of Judiciary is also a settled rule. The relationship between the Legislature and Executive is
defined by law and it corresponds to the adopted form of government. In a Parliamentary form
of government, like the one which is working in India and Britain, the legislature and executive
are closely related and the latter is collectively responsible before the former.
In the Presidential form, as is in operation in the U.S.A., the legislature and executive are two
independent and separate organs with stable and fixed tenures, and the executive is not
responsible to legislature. It is directly responsible to the people.

Government is an essential element of State. However it keeps on changing after regular


intervals. Further, Government can be of any form—Monarchy or Aristocracy or Dictatorship
or Democracy. It can be either Parliamentary or Presidential or both. It can be Unitary or
Federal or of mixture of these two in its organisation and working. In contemporary times every
civilized State has a democratic representative, responsible transparent and accountable
government.

iv) Sovereignty:

Sovereignty is the most exclusive element of State. State alone posses sovereignty. Without
sovereignty no state can exit. Some institutions can have the first three elements (Population
Territory and Government) but not sovereignty.

State has the exclusive title and prerogative to exercise supreme power over all its people and
territory. In fact, Sovereignty is the basis on which the State regulates all aspects of the life of
the people living in its territory.

As the supreme power of the State, Sovereignty has two dimensions:


Internal Sovereignty and External Sovereignty.

(i) Internal Sovereignty:


It means the power of the State to order and regulate the activities of all the people, groups and
institutions which are at work within its territory. All these institutions always act in accordance
with the laws of the State. The State can punish them for every violation of any of its laws.

(ii) External Sovereignty:


It means complete independence of the State from external control. It also means the full
freedom of the State to participate in the activities of the community of nations. Each state has
the sovereign power to formulate and act on the basis of its independent foreign policy.
We can define external sovereignty of the State as its sovereign equality with every other state.
State voluntarily accepts rules of international law. These cannot be forced upon the State.
India is free to sign or not to sign any treaty with any other state. No state can force it to do so.

No State can really become a State without sovereignty. India became a State in 1947 when it
got independence and sovereignty. After her independence, India got the power to exercise
both internal and external Sovereignty. Sovereignty permanently, exclusively and absolutely
belongs to the State. End of sovereignty means end of the State. That is why sovereignty is
accepted as the exclusive property and hallmark of the State.

These are the four essential elements of a State. A State comes to be a state only when it has
all these elements. Out of these four elements, Sovereignty stands accepted as the most
important and exclusive element of the State.

No other organisation or institution can claim sovereignty. An institution can have population,
territory and government but not sovereignty. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Punjab,
Sikkim, in fact all states of the Indian Union have their populations, territories and
governments.

These are also loosely called states. Yet these are not really states. These are integral parts of
the Indian State. Sovereignty belongs to India. Sikkim was a state before it joined India in 1975.
Now it is one of the 28 states of India. UNO is not a state and so is the case of the
Commonwealth of Nations, because these do not possess sovereignty. SAARC is not a state.
It is only a regional association of sovereign states of South Asia.

India, China, U.S.A., U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil,
Argentina and others such countries are States because each of these possesses all the four
essential elements of state. The presence of all these four elements alone vests a State with real
statehood.

6) Relevance of Kautilya’s theory and modern state :-

Kautilyan concept of state is very broad. Kautilya being a practical and rational thinkers spent
no time in discussing the origin of state and dealt directly with the concept of state. Kautilyan
state is very exhaustive in its functions. It can be called as welfare state. The state of Kautilya
also took the measures to provide avenues of employment to a large body of inhabitants.
Kautilya on the one hand, accepts the joint family system and on the other hand, forced the
individual’s responsibility towards his family.

These views of Kautilya’s theory of state is very relevant in contemporary times. The fact
that countries act in their own self-interest was a timeless principle of Kautilya’s
Arthashastra. The Kautilyan theory of state is very Mesiculons exhaustive and
comprehensive. It explains not only the Administration of the state but also explains the
relationship with the foreign states. Arthashastra speaks less about the politics and deals with
various aspects of administration of the state in detail, yet it provides necessary proposal and
proposition for the removal of hindrances from the path of progress and development of the
state.

7) Conclusion:-

Arthasastra covers almost every aspect of statecraft including diplomacy. For instance, the
contemporary phenomenon of honey-trap finds a very detailed treatment in Arthasastra.
Similarly, the concept of Rajamandala in the Arthasastra provides a framework for
understanding and analyzing the behaviour of nations in contemporary international relations.
Kautilya’s Arthasastra has seven Prakrits or constituent elements of state, whereas in western
conception of state only four elements find mention. Economy which is the basis of a state is
missing in the western conception, whereas Arthasastra considers it as an important constituent
of state. Since the world has dramatically changed establishing the relevance of Kautilya’s
work will require great amount of scholarship. One way to establish the relevance of
Arthasastra is to explore the elements of universality in it, which transcends temporal
dimensions. The western discourse on peace and security is premised upon the belief that
security or in other words military security is the precondition for peace, whereas the Indian
discourse rests upon the belief that peace can be attained even without establishing the primacy
of military hardware. For India, peace is both means and end; to the contrary western thinkers
see peace merely as a goal attainable by achieving a high degree of military self-reliance.
However, this fallacy of belief has led to war and conflict everywhere in the world. Kautilya
who has been viewed as one of the first realist thinkers also echoes this Indian belief system
and does not overstate the importance of military hardware for a state and therefore, his seven
elements of state (saptanga theory) lays equal emphasis on all seven. Sapta means seven and
anga means limbs. These elements he compares to the different limbs of the human body. These
seven elements are the angas, which should be active and healthy for the smooth functioning
of the state. Kautilya considered all these elements as being interdependent. Though,
Arthashastra does not influence the official thinking in India, many countries in West Asia
follow the tenets of Arthashastra in a very serious fashion.

The seven elements of state given by Kautilya were related to the governance of a king while
in present times modern state elements are related to the governance of a group of people which
considers several views of the individuals of the state.

You might also like