Political science as an academic discipline has had its roots and is conducted mostly within the Western tradition, particularly from the philosophies of ancient Greek writers like Plato and Aristotle. But this has a side effect of overlooking more complex political philosophies originating from other regions, the Indian subcontinent in particular. One of the key figures is Kautilya, who is also referred to as Chanakya, the author of Arthashastra, a revolutionary treatise on statecraft and political conduct. Still, due to its encyclopaedic vision and focus on practical issues, the Arthashastra remains overshadowed in Western political science.
Historical Context and Rediscovery
It would be the fourth century BCE that the treatise in political economy known as the Arthashastra was attributed to Kautilya. A teacher, philosopher, economist and the Prime Minister at that time Kautilya played a key role in establishing the Mauryan Empire. In the book, the following issues are covered; political diplomacy, economy, military affairs, and government. The Arthashastra follows a realistic pattern, facts and the practical aspects of state governance while the Greek school of thought was very theoretical and rather over-idealistic.
Despite dating from ancient times, the Arthashastra remained on the shelf for centuries. This work was again lost and not rediscovered until 1904 by a Sanskrit scholar named Rudrapatna Shamasastry who stumbled into a manuscript in the Oriental Research Institute in Mysore, India. Shamasastry obtained its translation and published the treatise in the academic world but failed to garner the sort of recognition paid to the beloved Western texts.
It is rather interesting to trace the process of how the Arthashastra emerged from obscurity to an object of academic attention. Shamasastry’s discovery was a breakthrough but this discovery was perhaps the first step. This was done through his translation efforts that embraced years dedicated towards translating work. He embraced challenges with stiff tasks such as decoding the ancient script content and interpretation of the context of the messages which in most cases was poles apart from the political text in the Western world. He was so devoted that he pointed out ways through which other scholars could further research this old piece.
The fact that the Arthashastra is a collection of different works suggests that it was a living record that was updated often to keep up with the shifting political climate of ancient India. The work is unusual in the annals of political philosophy because of its adaptability and practical aspects. The 20th century’s rediscovery of it provided fresh perspectives on the complexity of ancient Indian political structures.
Comparative Analysis: Aristotle’s Politics and Kautilya’s Arthashastra
Politics is one of the most significant works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and is considered to be one of the earliest texts in the field of political science. It includes the analysis of the state, the citizen, and the function of various forms of government. He focuses on ethical and philosophical considerations and tries to determine what sort of polis would allow its citizens to live the ‘good’ life. It is impossible to dispute the fact that Aristotle has left his impact, however, his work is more of a theoretical and prescriptive nature.
On the other hand, Arthashastra is a treatise on polity that describes in detail the rules of governance and all the aspects of statecraft. The book of Kautilya discusses issues of policing, economic policies, spying, diplomacy, and warfare. His approach is very pragmatic, the goal of which is to put into the hands of rulers the means by which they can consolidate and strengthen their authority, and to guarantee the well-being of the state.
The other major distinction is in the area of international relations and foreign policy. Aristotle has not devoted much attention to this issue and his views are more inclined to internal organization. Kautilya, however, does present a detailed concept of foreign policy, which includes the well-known theory of ‘Mandala’ that deals with friendly and hostile kingdoms. This makes the Arthashastra particularly relevant in the field of international relations and geopolitical strategies.
While Aristotle’s politics aim to identify happiness theory and to provide an ideal state in which a man realizes his purpose or attains human perfection, the primary goal of Kautilya’s Arthashastra is to gain and preserve the earth. In this respect, Arthashastra has two major objectives: First, it seeks to identify how a ruler can defend his territory; second, it aims to identify how the same ruler can expand his territory.
It is true that like Aristotle, Kautilya also supports slavery, but he does not believe in the natural notion of slavery, rather he illuminates human and fair treatment for the slaves.
After the discussion of business expertise, in chapter 12 of “Politics“, Aristotle once again readdresses the theme of household governance with an emphasis on male authority over females and children. Aristotle also argues that the natural order is for the man to have dominance and rule over the woman, as the master does to the slaves. He differentiates between political authority and this rule by saying that the husband should consult his wife to some extent but the final decision lies in the hands of the husband. He argues that women cannot govern or participate in politics because they are not capable of managing the faculty of reason, so they are kept indoors and subjugated. He then relates the education and morality of women and children to the regime or political system they are under, stressing the importance of the conformity of citizens’ behaviour with the state for its stability and prosperity.
Another ancient thinker, who has different views on women compared to Aristotle is Kautilya (Chanakya), who wrote the “Arthashastra“. Even though Aristotle stresses the natural subordination of women that entitles men to dominate the women in the household, Kautilya’s attitude toward women is more liberal and rational. Kautilya in his “Arthashastra” does not confine women to the limits of a homemaker but he supports the idea of educating women and gives credit to their abilities in the field of governance and administration. While Aristotle only allows women to be confined to the home and shut out of political life because of the lack of reason, Kautilya argues that women can actively support the stability of societies and political systems. His attitude differs greatly from Aristotle’s sexist opinions, as Kautilya’s work is less biased and offers a more complex view of women and their opportunities in society, which might go beyond domestic activities.
The vision of Aristotle is purely idealistic compared to Kautilya’s realism. Aristotle imagines a society where people engage themselves in politics to achieve the common good, and he also discusses how Practical knowledge (Ethics and Politics) is meaningless if not applied, but a historical fact states that Aristotle never served in a political capacity in Athens despite living there for much of his life. His vision is more focused on the moral and ethical aspects of man, virtues and the idea of the ‘good life’. However, this approach tends to disregard the dynamics and the realities of politics, especially in a vast and, therefore, plural empire.
While Aristotle is more concerned with the theory of governance, Kautilya is more pragmatic in his approach to the management of a state. His style stems from the hard school of power politics, resource mobilization, and state security. The Arthashastra does not hesitate in recommending espionage, strategic marriages, and sometimes even secret operations to ensure state stability. Even though Kautilya was writing in the 4th century BCE, his focus on the central authority and the detailed economic policies show a level of sophistication that was yet to come in later centuries. It is argued that beneath the cutting-edge tactics and utilitarianism of Kautilya lies the wisdom of the Veda, and his direct involvement in the politics of the Mauryan Empire as opposed to Aristotle who was not even a citizen of Athens where he spent the majority of his life.
The Bias of Western Political Thought
There could be various reasons for this attitude of Western scholars towards the Arthashastra. First, there is the phenomenon of Orientalism that has been present in Western academic culture for a long time and which tends to regard Western texts and traditions as superior. This is usually a Eurocentric approach to history and leaves out non-Western contributions thus providing a restricted view of world political philosophy.
Second, the methodological differences between the texts may have played a role in the disregard of the Arthashastra. Normative theories and ethical aspects have always dominated Western political philosophy since ancient times through Plato, and Aristotle to modern political philosophers like Locke and Rousseau. It could be that the highly practical and even cruel at times tactics used in the Arthashastra were distasteful to scholars who were trained in these traditions.
Third and last, there is the aspect of access or the level of interaction that people have with the objects being studied. Until comparatively recently the Arthashastra was not easily accessible in translation, and when it was, it was often without the depth of commentary and discussion that was provided for the Greeks and Romans. This deficiency of research meant that the Arthashastra rarely found its way into course offerings and political theory debates.
The biases in Western political thought are deeply entrenched, influenced by centuries of intellectual tradition that prioritize Western philosophies. The dominance of Greek and Roman texts in the academic canon has overshadowed contributions from other cultures. This bias is not just about preference but also about accessibility and interpretation. Many Western scholars lacked the cultural and historical context needed to fully appreciate the nuances of the Arthashastra.
Moreover, the ethical frameworks of Western and Indian political thought differ significantly. Western political philosophy, heavily influenced by Christian ethics and Enlightenment ideals, often emphasizes individual rights and moral principles. The Arthashastra, with its pragmatic approach, was often viewed through a moralistic lens, leading to misunderstandings and undervaluation. Kautilya’s acceptance of morally ambiguous tactics for the greater good of the state was seen as Machiavellian, overshadowing the ethical considerations underlying his strategies.
The Significance of the Arthashastra
It is important to note that recognizing the value of Arthashastra is fundamental for a more complete knowledge of political science. The text’s understanding and analysis concerning nationhood are still relevant today. It provides lessons on administration, economic management, and strategic planning that inform contemporary politics including business aspects.
Additionally, practical governance as stressed in the Arthashastra could play an instrumental role in offsetting some of the idealistic strains that exist within Western political thought. This reminds us that politics does not only involve notions of ideology and ethics but it also includes pragmatism, tactics and skilful management.
On the subject of international relations, Kautilya’s thoughts on diplomacy as well as espionage are especially unique. His Mandala Theory which argues that states immediately adjacent to each other are natural enemies while those separated by an enemy form a natural alliance has continued to be influential in understanding geopolitical dynamics. In this regard, the text also indicates how information and strategy aid in promoting national security through espionage missions or activities.
The significance of the Arthashastra extends beyond its immediate historical context. It provides a framework for understanding governance that is adaptable and timeless. The treatise’s detailed economic policies, for instance, can inform modern economic planning and management. Kautilya’s emphasis on a strong and efficient administrative system highlights the importance of bureaucracy in ensuring effective governance. His approach to law and order, which balances strict enforcement with social welfare, offers lessons for contemporary criminal justice systems.
Furthermore, the Arthashastra’s focus on espionage and intelligence gathering underscores the importance of information in governance. In today’s digital age, where information is a critical asset, Kautilya’s insights are particularly relevant. His strategies for managing internal and external threats through intelligence and strategic alliances provide a robust framework for modern statecraft.
Overcoming Western Biases
Overcoming the biases that have historically marginalized the Arthashastra involves a concerted effort to integrate this text into the broader canon of political thought. This requires re-evaluating academic curricula to include non-Western texts and perspectives. Scholars must engage with the Arthashastra on its terms, understanding its historical and cultural context rather than imposing Western frameworks upon it.
The void can be filled in part by translations and commentary by academics knowledgeable with ancient Indian political philosophy. A more sophisticated comprehension of the Arthashastra and its applicability to contemporary political science can result from collaborative research between Western and Indian academics. Furthermore, a deeper understanding of Kautilya’s work can be obtained through multidisciplinary approaches that integrate political science, history, economics, and cultural studies.
It is also essential to recognize the contributions of scholars like R. Shamasastry and others who have worked tirelessly to bring the Arthashastra to the forefront of academic discourse. Their efforts have laid the groundwork for future scholarship that can further elevate the status of this remarkable text.
Conclusion
In conclusion the Arthashastra by Kautilya stands as testament to rich and sophisticated political thought that flourished outside the Western tradition. Despite its initial neglect and the biases inherent in Western political science, the Arthashastra’s rediscovery and study have unveiled its profound insights into governance. It also explores economic management and international relations. Kautilya’s pragmatic and adaptable approach offers valuable lessons. These lessons complement and enrich the more idealistic Western political philosophies.
To truly appreciate and integrate the Arthashastra into the broader canon of political thought it is imperative to overcome historical biases and engage with the text in its cultural and historical context. This involves revising academic curricula. It also requires fostering collaborative research between Western and Indian scholars. Moreover, employing multidisciplinary approaches is crucial. Recognizing the significance of the Arthashastra broadens our understanding of political science. It also acknowledges the diverse intellectual traditions that have shaped human governance throughout history.
Authored By- Utkarsh Yadav