Munich Personal RePEc Archive KAUTILYA: POLITICS, ETHICS AND STATECRAFT Chandrasekaran, Pravin Harvard University/Harvard Kennedy School 5 May 2006 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9962/ MPRA Paper No. 9962, posted 12 Aug 2008 01:03 UTC KAUTILYA POLITICS, ETHICS AND STATECRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND: KAUTILYA AND THE MAURYAN EMPIRE.........................................................3 KAUTILYA ON WAR.................................................................................................................................5 KAUTILYA ON JUSTICE..........................................................................................................................8 KAUTILYA ON DIPLOMACY................................................................................................................10 THE MANDALA CONCEPT.......................................................................................................................11 SIX FORMS OF DIPLOMACY.....................................................................................................................12 COMPARING KAUTILYA......................................................................................................................14 KAUTILYA AND PLATO...........................................................................................................................14 KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI...............................................................................................................15 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................20 BACKGROUND: KAUTILYA AND THE MAURYAN EMPIRE Kautilya was the minister in the Kingdom of Chandragupta Maurya during 317 – 293 B.C. He has been considered as one of the shrewdest ministers of the times and has explained his views on State, War, Social Structures, Diplomacy, Ethics, Politics and Statecraft very clearly in his book called Arthashastra1. The Mauryan Empire was larger than the later British India which expanded from the Indian Ocean to Himalayas and upto to Iran in the West. After Alexander left India, this was the most powerful kingdom in India and Kautilya was minister who advised the King. Before Kautilya there were other philosophers in India who composed the Shastras2 but his work was robust and encompassed all the treaties written earlier. I considered Kautilya for three reasons. Firstly, I wanted to highlight the patterns of thinking in the east which was present long before Machiavelli wrote his “Prince”. Secondly Kautilya’s ideologies on state, statecraft and ethics are very realistic and vastly applicable in today’s context. Thirdly, I feel Kautilya’s work on diplomacy is greatly underrepresented in the western world and it is quite apt to analyze his work in that area. If we compare statesman on the four dimension framework of: War & Peace, Human Rights, International Economic Justice and World Order Kautilya had a strong opinion on all the four aspects. In fact people like Bismark and Woodrow Wilson in recent history had been able to demonstrate their views only on two of the four dimensions. Kautilya’s 1 Kauilya’s definition of Arthshastra is as follows: Artha means the science which explains the means of acquiring and maintaining wealth and Shastra means the ways to protect this wealth and territory hence in total Arthashastra means the science of Polity. 2 Shastras – Way of Life for an individual and a state work is primarily a book of political realism where State is paramount and King shall carry out duties as advised in his book to preserve his state. Kautilya’s work is so deep rooted in realism that he goes to describe the gory and brutal means a King must adopt to be in power. This could have been one reason why Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya whom Kautilya advised renounced violence and war thus taking the path of Dharma or Morals. In this paper, I shall primarily focus on Kautilya’s thoughts on war, diplomacy and ethics. I have devoted a section to compare Kautilya with great philosophers like Plato and later ponder over why Machiavelli’s work looks so abridged and succinct in comparison to Kautilya’s work. Kautilya’s work is then seen in the light of today’s politics and ethics. As Max Weber put it aptly in his lecture, “Politics as a Vocation”, he said Machiavelli’s work was harmless when compared to Kautilya’s Arthashastra. KAUTILYA ON WAR Kautilya was a proponent of a welfare state but definitely encouraged war for preserving the power of the state. He thought that the possession of power and happiness in a state makes a king superior hence a king should always strive to augment his power. This actually coincides with the Weber’s view that there is no moral in international politics which means that states must be at war all the times. Kautilya though did not state this explicitly but we can infer that he did presume to be at war is natural for a state. On the other hand he like Thomas Hobbes believed the goal of science was power. He said that, “Power is strength and strength changes the minds”3, hence he used power as a tool to control his society as well as his enemies. He also believed that it is the King’s duty to seek material gain, spiritual good and pleasures. In this he clearly comes out as a realist and does believe in ethics of responsibility4. Kautilya thinks that for a King to attain these three goals must create wealth, have armies and should conquer the kingdoms and enlarge the size of his state. This is quite interesting because he in a way does believe that a state’s superiority is in its military and economic might which is what later philosophers and rulers have followed. In the case of war, Kautilya and Machiavelli have the same reasoning where they advocate the King to be closely involved in the science of war. Kautilya advocated three types of war: Open war, Concealed war and the Silent War5. Open war he describes as the war fought between states, concealed war as one which is similar to guerilla war and Silent war which is fought on a continued basis inside the kingdom so that the power of 3 Page 15, Roger Boesche, “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India” 4 Ethics of Responsibility was a type advocated by Max Weber in his lecture, “Politics as an avocation” 5 Page 22, Roger Boesche, “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India” the King does not get diluted. In his opinion open warfare in any form was righteous. In open warfare he believed that State is one up on over morals and no morals can stop the State from fighting an open war. He believed that there were three types of kings who go into warfare and it is important to understand the distinction between the types of kings and the appropriate warfare strategy to be selected. Firstly, he thought there was a righteous conqueror who can believes in power of the state. This is where the open warfare needs to be fought and the righteous king treats the lost king with dignity. Secondly there is a greedy king who fights war for material wealth in which case along with power state’s resources are lost and hence to prevent such a war, one should use a tactical and concealed war. Thirdly he thought there were always demoniacal kings who wanted to plunder and here one must use silent wars. Kautilya was also very harsh in narrating the exact methods of fighting a silent war and use of spies and women as tools to reduce the strength of a state. Machiavelli, in his work does not labor into the details and one reason could be that the time when Machiavelli wrote, The Prince, the world had changed and already quite immoral in many ways. The aspect which I dislike in Kautilya’s work is where he advocates the use of women as weapons of war. He saw women as a source of pleasure and charm which should be used to instill clashes between kings. One reason why wrote in detail explaining the strategy was because he was a strong proponent of social structure. He strongly believed in the caste system and the relative position of a man and a woman in a caste. This could be another reason why during his time there were many Kshatriyas6 . Using secret agents, assassins, lies were tactics which he advocated to win a war. He vehemently defends the 6 Kshatriyas is a caste in the Indian system who were the warriors state and believes that religion and morals are supposed to serve the state. In Kautilya’s concept of war, chivalry does not have any place and he is a realist. When compared to two early Indian writers Bharadwaja7 and Vishalaksha8, the former is a realist and the latter is an idealist. Kautilya, takes the side of Bharadwaja in his Arthashastra and believes that war is a means to an end for wealth and stability. It is very difficult to say what inspired his thinking on the concept of war as we know that he was born as a poor Brahmin9and strongly believed in social structures. Kautilya also took the societal structure and King’s power as given and never challenged it. His focus was not on war per se but on the strategy and tactics of war which elaborates in his work. In describing his opinion on war, I think he has been very right in saying that a state which seeks power is in war all the time if we use his classification of war10. 7 Bharadwaja was a realist and believed that if a weak king cannot fight, he must use diplomacy 8 Visalaksha was an idealist and believed that it is a King’s moral duty to protect the Kingdom and should fight even it means killing himself and losing his citizens 9 Brahmin – A Caste in India which is considered to take the profession of a priest 10 Any state is at war if we think of an open, concealed and silent war Kautilya on Justice Kautilya believed that for the prosperity of a state, the state must be devoid of internal conflict and the King should be in control of the state. To maintain this internal peace he believed in a just and realistic rule of law. His definition of a state was one which had power and wealth and hence he put property rights and protection of wealth as one of the important themes in his jurisprudence. In fact he advocated that one could get rid of corporeal punishment by paying off fines. Kautilya also attaches great importance to human rights on how the invaded ruler and his ministers should be treated. He shows a deep understanding of criminal justice and war justice. Surprisingly, for a harsh and realist man like Kautilya he shows mercy towards the people defeated in a war and recommends humanity and justice towards them. He thinks that this important to preserve the mandala structure of war and peace. He advocates that defeated king shall be treated with respect and he should be made an ally. He thinks that they key people advising the defeated king should be eliminated through a silent war. Kautilya believes that law should be in the hands of the King and punishments need to be awarded to those who are guilty so that King can protect himself from the social unrest and unhappiness. He believes that punishment is a means to an end and it needs to prevent the commission of the crime. Kautilya also was a reformer where he though punishments could reform a person and hence a society. His devotion to social structure was so strong that he thinks that Brahmins11 need to be punished less by only exiling him and not torture him. This unequal social justice was in itself injustice but so was his belief. He attaches great importance to dandaniti 12 which includes, protecting property, acquiring property, augmenting them and distributing them. He thinks that justice is an important constituent of sovereignty and it needs to be preserved by the State and the ultimate responsibility lies with the King. Kautilya’s view on crime and justice is very elaborate and goes on to differentiate between various crimes. He advocates different punishments depending if they were crimes committed while in public office, civil crimes, sexual crimes, religious crimes etc. This shows that he had great grasp to customize the rule of law depending both on the offence and the structure of the society. He believed that the structure and peace is preserved in a society by effective jurisprudence. In today’s context some of his ideas might be irrelevant but it shows that the ancient Hindu jurisprudence was codified and actually more resembled the common law. Kautilya’s understanding of justice, war, diplomacy and human rights makes him unique in his times. In ancient India there is no one comparable who could have stood the test for justice being a tool for statescraft. Kautilya believed that while it is as much important for the state to wage a war and conquer, it is also important to maintain law and order within the state in order to make it more powerful. 11 It is also deplorable to see that he advocates strict punishments for men who commit adultery with women of higher caste but if the woman was of a lower caste then punishments are more lenient. 12 Justice by Stick