KAUTILYA’S THEORY OF STATE:

(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 .Arthashastra 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 up his theory of the State as an organic entity on the basis of seven elements,
which he describes in his Arthashastra 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, he 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 Arthashastra’s Sixth
Book, entitled. Mandala Yonih, these are
1. The Swami, the sovereign King;
2. The Mantrin, the ministers;
3. The Janapada, the people and the territory;
4. The Durga, the fortification;
5. The Kosha, the treasury;
6. The Sena or the Danda, the army; and
7 The Mitra, the allies.
All these elements establish the nature of State. The Seven characteristics that emerge from these
seven elements are:
1. Unity, uniformity and solidarity of the state;
2. Stable and systematic administration;
3. Definite territory, able to protect and support both the king and the subjects;
4. Planned system of security and defense;
5. System of just and proportionate taxation;
6. Strong and powerful state; and
7. Freedom from alien rule.
Through these elements, Kautilya is able to depict the various facets of the state of his
conception. Inclusion of Mitra (ally), Kosha (treasury), and Sena (army) as separate elements in
the formation of State may not be acceptable today, but it had a marked relevance in an age when
the theory of Separation of Powers was not predominant and when the State meant nothing but
the sole embodiment of the highest executive authority, subject only to the supremacy of laws. As
a matter of fact, in incorporating all these elements as constituents of his body-politic, Kautilya is
only according recognition to all the agencies which contribute to the “moral and political
existence of a community”.
Moreover, by including Mitra (ally) as a constituent element of the State, Kautilya has succeeded
in presenting the State “not as a thing in itself, but as one entity among and in relation to many”
in the international sphere. He recognizes not only its sovereign character but also its
interdependence. His polity has, therefore, been rightly described by M.V. Krishna Rao as
“pluralistically dominated monism”.
The seven elements of the State outlined by Kautilya may be discussed as follows
(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.
Kautilya gives a comprehensive list of four broad categories of qualities which constitute the
ideals of a Swami:
(a) Qualities of an inviting nature (.Abhigamika Guna): this induces the people to approach him,
i.e. the qualities of high birth, pious, consulting the aged persons, truthful, not of divided nature,
grateful, having lofty ideals, powerful to control the neighboring kings, of firm mind, having a
large assembly and having a propensity for discipline and restraint.
(b) Qualities of intellect and intuition (Prajyna Guna): devotedness, hearing, reception, retention,
discriminate vision, critical analysis, penetration into the regions of metaphysics.
(c) Qualities of enthusiasm (Utsaha Guna): Prowess, non-endurance, Quickness and dexterity.
(d) Qualities of self-restraint and spirit (Atma Sampad): eloquence, self-pride, keenness of mind,
energetic, powerful, trained in the arts, free from vice, capable of giving rewards and penal
sanctions, having foresight, ready to avail opportunities, capable of taking advantage of the
enemy’s weak-points, free from lust, anger, covetousness, obstinacy, fickleness and back-biting
habits and adhering to the customs as interpreted by the aged persons.
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: (1) Protective; and (2)
Promotive.
THE PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS:
In so far as the protective functions that Kautilya expects the Swami to perform, the following are
of vital nature:
(1) Being the natural guardian and saviour (the parens patriae) of his people, his highest duty is to
protect:
(i) the life of his people, specially the ones in distress, the widows, the women without
children, the women with infants, the orphans, the sick and the indigent;
(ii) hermits, srotriyas and students, and
(iii) property of the people;
(2)To put down violence and maintain law and order;
(3)To avert dangers and command the army;
(4)To redress peoples’ grievances;
(5) To punish the wrong-doers; and
(6) To administer justice impartially and in accordance with the sacred law (Dharma), evidence
(Vyavhara), history (Samstha) and enacted law (Raajashasana).
THE PROMOTIVE FUNCTIONS:
On the other hand, his promotive functions include the following:
(1) To promote the moral and material happiness and welfare of his people, as in their happiness
lies his happiness and in their welfare his welfare;
(2) To enable them to pursue freely their independent efforts in lift;
(3) To maintain unity and solidarity;
(4) To reward virtue;
(5) To promote agriculture, industry and arts;
(6) To regulate the means of livelihood, especially of the lat and artisans; and
(7) 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 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, councilors, bureaucrats, advisers etc. In its narrow sense, the term Amatya
or Mantrin is used for the minister of the highest grade. N.C. Bandyopadhyaya points out that it is
not clear whether there was one mantrin or more, though some passages of Arthashastra 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 Dharmopadashuddha (morally and ethically pure), Arthopashuddha (honest in
financial matters), and 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
every where 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. D.R. Bhandarkar and R.S. Sharma are of the view that Kautilya’s Janapada
includes not only territory but also population. N.C. Bandyopadhyaya is also of the view that
when Kautilya spoke of the Janapada, he spoke of his subjects settled in the kingdom. 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: Audak (surrounded by water), Paarvat (built on the top of the hill), Dhaanvana (built on
barren or waste land), and 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 overlaiden 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 archeological
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 (incharge of the armoury);
b) the naavadhyaksha (incharge of the naval forces);
c) the ashvaadhyaksha (incharge of cavalry);
d) the hastvaadhyaksha (incharge of the elephants);
e) the rathaadhyaksha (incharge of the chariots); and
f) the pattyadhyaksha (incharge of the infantry).
R.S. Sharma has added to these six divisions of Kautilya, the other two additional categories of
forced labour and hired soldiers and picturised the army as ashtaanga Bala.
Kautilya has also categorized the nature of the army as follows Maul Bala (hereditary army),
Bhrit Bala (paid army), Shreni Bala (territorial army), Mitra Bala (army of allies), Amitra Bala
(army of enemies), and Atavi Bala (tribal army). Kautilya was of the view that the chief of the
army should be amply familiar with the abilities and inabilities of all these forces. He should be
familiar with all types of warfare, i.e. Prakash Yudha (regular declared warfare), Kuta Yudha
(warfare of treachery and intrigue), and Tushnim Yudha (chemical warfare). Furthermore,
loyalty, knowledge of kshastra vidyaa (science of weaponary), experience, devotion,
preparedness for sacrifice, etc. were some of the qualities expected in the soldiers. Such
awareness of the qualities and qualifications on the part of the army chief and other soldiers are
relevant even today.
(7) MITRA (THE ALLIES):
Having realised that ‘political isolation means death”. Kautilya proceeded to consider the Mitra
or the ally as a vital factor. Infact, it is the quality and quantity of the State’s allies that determines
its position in the political world.
Kautilya recognizes 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 (intutional), 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 Saptang 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.
A remarkable similarity between the Kautilyan and the Marxist conceptions of the State has also
been traced with reference to their view of the class-character and the need of Danda and Kosha.
R.S. Sharma concludes his analysis with his observation that “Kautilya’s Saptang theory not only
bears resemblance to the modern definition of the State, but contains certain elements typical of
the State expounded by Angels.”
However, a reference to the problem of the concept of sovereignty is immensely important. In
Ancient India, there were sovereign States in the sense that the holders of the political office of
kingship could generally make their ‘will’ prevail by resort to ‘force’. Various scholars have only
been denying the conceptual equivalent in Sanskrit of the notion of State sovereignty, and not the
historical existence of actual Powerful sovereign kingdoms.
Kautilya’s concept of ‘State’ is, however, 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
(a councillor), 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, a state of war,
marked by Matsyanyaya (the strong, like the big fish, tyrannizing and devouring the weaker and
smaller ones).
Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that, on the one hand, Kautilya constructs the categories
which make the ideal, in each of the seven constituents; on the other hand, the eighth book of
Arthashastra examines the vices and calamities of each of the sevenfold factors. It analysis the
troubles of the king and his kingdom (like gambling, drunkenness, greed, anger etc.), the
aggregate of the troubles of men (being untrained, greedy, over-ambitious), the groups of
molestators (if most inhabitants indulge in armed conflicts), the group of obstructionists (the
majority of inhabitants being agricultural labourers), the group of the troubles of the treasury
(arising out of man-made and natural calamities), the group of troubles of the army (because of
loyal soldiers’ resentment on account of non-payment of salaries and wives’ influence on solders)
and, lastly, the group of troubles of a friend (who could be influenced or bribed and could turn
neutral at times of crisis). Kautilya was of the view that if a fault in one element effects other
elements, then it should be considered disastrous and has to be rectified.
Here, it is important to note that Kautilya provided for a mechanism to prevent the King from
becoming self-centered and autocratic dictator, by keeping him under the control of sacred and
social traditions, ethical norms aimed at peace and prosperity of his people. The sovereign of
Kautilya is bound by the ethical norms of Anvikshaki, Trayi Vaarta and Dandaniti, which he can
not change or alter arbitrarily. (The happiness and prosperity of the kin consists in subject. By
accepting Praja Dharma as Raaja Dharma, the King of Kautilya is accepted and adored as parens
patriar.
PEACE POLITICS OR UPAAYAS:
Means for the regulation of inter-state politics, as suggested by Kautilya, were comprehensive
enough to include all the four traditional means agreed upon, more or less, by ancient Indian
authors. The four principal methods by which a king was to extend his dominions and govern his
own kingdom were called Upaayas. Some texts consider that the Upayaas are seven in number,
but there is disagreement on which constitute the additional three (i.e. Maaya, or trechery,
Upeksha or ignoring or remaining passive, and Indrojala or supernatural illusions). Conciliation
(Saama), giving presents (Dana), causing dissensions (Bheda), and war of punishment (Danda),
were the foremost of the Policies to be adopted, to which Kautilya also agreed upon.
There were said to be the five methods of Saama. One may conciliate by praising the qualities of
the enemy, recalling the pleasant relationship and good actions of the past, pointing out the
mutual benefits of the relationship showing the likelihood of further advantages and the harmony
of interests that both sides have in their objectives. Along these lines, one discusses common
friends and relatives, and praiseworthy conduct, learned family, and other qualities of the
adversary.
Dana consists of giving gifts of land, precious and rare articles, money, girls and various other
desirable presents. Bheda indicated many tactics of sowing fear, suspicion and dissension among
alarmed, ambitious, haughty, disaffected and provoked persons and also amongst the friends of
foreigners. Danda included various techniques of war.
Implementation and execution of these Upaayas depended upon the circumstances and the nature
of enemy. As superior (Balwaan) king was to be confronted with the means of Saama or
conciliation of Dana or monetary gratification, enemy of equal status could be dealt with tactics
of Bheda or sowing dissension. An inferior or weaker king could be met with techniques of
Danda or punishment.
Kautilya, thus, prescribes four ways of conquering the earth by a king. The first is to try to win
the country of his enemy, and if he succeeds therein, he should win the indifferent one (Saama).
The second is that in case there is no middle or indifferent State he has to try to win over the
elements of sovereignty of the enemy with the help of his own virtues (Dana). The third consists
in playing off the enemy against the friend and vice versa (Bheda). The fourth is first defeating
the enemy and, then increasing one’s strength (Danda).
WAR TACTICS OR SIX GUNAS (SHADGUNYAS):
It appears that the six-fold policy of Shadgunya or six gunas actually grows out of the Mandala
concept. Infact, the circle of States is the source of the six gunas, forms, of policy of Sandhi
(alliance), Vigraha (War), Yaan (Military expedition), Asana (halting), Samashrya (seeking
protection) and Dvedhibhaava (duplicity).
Sandhi signifies an agreement with pledges. Kautilya has described, in detail, the situations in
which a king should enter into treaties, agreements or alliances. In all circumstances, treaties
should aim at the enemy, promoting self-defence, and self-development. Kautilya has advised the
defeated kings to have recourse to alliances, initially to become an ally of the superior king and
ultimately to deceive and weaken his own enemies. Kautilya has also mentioned various
categories or treaties like the ones aiming at enrichment of one’s armies and armaments,
enrichment of the treasury and gold reserves, gaining additional lands, improving one’s areas of
action, and increasing the number of his friends.
Vigraha or war is open hostility. It can be used both for defence and aggression. When, the king
is sure of successfully repelling an attack from the enemy, he must take to war, instead of
pursuing the policy of peace. Similarly, when the enemy is in trouble or is engaged in war on
another front, Vigraha is recommended. It is, however, very significant that when both war and
peace are expected to lead to the same result, Kautilya advises the king to prefer peace to war, for
disadvantages such as loss of power and wealth and the burden of sin are always associated with
war.
Millitary expedition or making preparation for war is Yaana or marching. If a king thinks that by
marching his troops, it is possible to destroy the works of his enemy, he may increase his
resources by marching. Kautilya proceeds to show the diplomatic utility of Yaana by specifying
marching after proclaiming war (Vigrahayaanam), marching after making peace
(Sandhyayaanam) and preparedness for marching by a confederation of States
(Sambhuyaprayaanam). He also gives some suggestions for the king against whom march should
be undertaken.
Kautilya makes a great contribution to political thought by giving his concept of Aasana or
halting or waiting for favourable conditions or neutrality and his interpretions of the terms
Madhyama and Udaasina kings who remain neutral in the Mandala without losing their dynamic
character. He defines Aasana as indifference or inactivity, which is guided by self-interest. When
either in peace or in war, a king finds neither loss to his enemy nor gain to himself, he should,
though superior, observe neutrality or Aasana. Neutrality takes various forms according to
circumstances. It can be adopted out of indecision, pressure of external forces, or consideration of
one’s weakness. There are three aspects of neutrality, viz. Sthaana, i.e. keeping quiet; Aasana or
Withdrawal from hostility, and Upekshana or negligence by taking no Steps of strategic means.
Neutrality can be adopted by a strong power as a matter of policy as well as by a weak power as a
policy of Protection. Kautilya, furthermore, shows insight in the diplomatic cobweb, when he
maintains that neutrality can be observed even after declaring war or concluding peace. Talking
about armed neutrality, Kautilya observes,”neither can the enemy do me any harm, nor can I
destroy nw enemy”. This indicates that when a king is unable to attack his enemy, but is strong
enough to defend himself, he should follow the policy of neutrality. Such a king should be fully
prepared. Then alone his policy of neutralit’ can be effective. If there is aggression, he has to
offer armed resistance. Thus, this neutrality is armed-neutrality which is indeed an illuminating
innovation in the field of politics.
Samashraya is infact a subordinate alliance, seeking the protection of a superior power against
possible aggression or for attacking a powerful enemy. To surrender in front of superior enemy
and to create suspicion in the heart of the enemy king, according to Kautilya, is a form of
Samashraya. When a king can neither harm his enemy, nor can he depend upon himself, then he
should opt for protection and patronage of a superior king. However, if he is unable to find such a
powerful king, he should then surrender before his powerful enemy. At the same time, Kautilya
warns that very often acceptance of patronage of a highly powerful king can be suicidal and
harmful.
When a king enters into a treaty with one king and promotes dissention in the State of another,
the situation thus created is named by Kautilya as that of Dvedhibhaava or duplicity. This policy
of double standards also aims, at the same time, in dividing enemy’s army and attacking smaller
units of army in isolation and, thus, unfolding enemy’s policy of adversery.
Kautilya has also made a comparative study of the relevance and significance of these means. In
his view, a prudent king should have recourse of Sand/il (agreement) in preference to Vigraha
(hostility), to Aasana (halting) in preference to Yaan (military expedition) or war, and to
Dvedhibhaava (duplicity) in preference to Sarnshraya (seeking protection, keeping in mind the
probable results and expected cost of damage involved. The king, infact, was expected by
Ancient Indian scholars to use all other expedients before adopting the policy of war (Vigraha).
The king was to plan his course of action patiently like a crane, display his strength like a lion,
snatch his prey like a wolf and, then, run like a rabbit. The king was advised not to attack many
foes at the same time, but to grind them one by one. Further, to specify, there are no separate
species or creatures, according to ancient Indian scholars, called friends or foes. Persons become
allies or enemies depending on the force of circustances. Debts, defeated enemies and neglected
diseases always grow until they do harm. They should, therefore, be exterminated.
The diplomacy, thus, advocated by our ancient Indian authors is a curious combination of
supremely high ethical principles with treachery, deceit and calculated ruthlessness. War has
never been a particularly noble ethical practice and ancient India looked at it purely as a struggle
for power — an aspect of the reality of diplomacy. There were certainly just or unjust standards
of conduct during warfare, but how much they affected historical combat is a very difficult
question.
The objectives of the conqueror — absolute attainment of power and success, or at least the
denial of the same to his enemy, is developed as an important principle. The Vijigishu should
conclude peace when he finds himself to be stronger, to neutrality when there is stalemate, attack
when he is very strong, take refuge when he is weak and adopt the dual policy in a situation when
he finds that he is in need of extreme help. The basic principle involved is that progress should be
the fundamental objective of all types of foreign policy.
The selection of the policies of peace and war is treated by Kautilya as involving a military as
well as a political problem. His views regarding the aggressor marching his troops against the
enemy differ from those of early Arthashastra writers and consider the policy of attack as a
military problem in the widest sense of the team. Again, differing from the older masters,
Kautilya assigns equal importance to the three principal factors of power, peace and time.
From the view-point of inter-state relations vis-a-vis the attitude of subjects towards the king,
Kautilya has recommended that the king whose subjects are oppressed should be attacked rather
than the one whose people are loyal to their king. He, thus, indirectly warned the king not to ill-
treat his people, lest they become impoverished, greedy or disaffected, and for him progressively
dangerous.
Kautilya also has a reassuring word for the weak king, whose age-old problem of standing up to
the powerful aggressor is treated from a refreshing angle. Kautilya enjoins the weak ruler to seek
refuge with a more powerful ruler, than his aggressor. Alternatively, he should combine with
various such kings who are equal in power and resources to his enemy king. Otherwise, he should
continue with a number of inferior but enthusiastic kings. At the worse, he should take shelter in a
fort. He should face the danger either by treaty or by a battle of intrigues or by an unrighteous
light.
 Aristotle’s Views on Slavery
Slavery was in vogue in Greece earlier to, as well as after Aristotle. Aristotle defended
slavery both from the point of view of the slave and the master, the householder. He has gone
to the extent of moral justification of slavery. Aristotle proceeds with the plea that every art
requires its proper instrument. The management of a household is an art which also requires
proper instrument. As in arts which has a definite sphere, the workers must have their own
proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work, so it is in the management of the
household. The instruments are of various sorts, some are living, some are lifeless, the
servant or a slave is also a kind of instrument.
Aristotle distinguish between animate and inanimate instruments in a household. The slave
was animate instrument intended for action and not for production. Aristotle defined slave as
one ‘who can be and therefore is another’s and one who has reason enough to comprehend,
but does not have reason’. The slave is not only a slave to his master but also belonged
entirely to him. The master on the contrary was a master to the slave and did not belong to
him. A slave is, thus, a human being who differs from his master in not possessing reason, he
differs from lower animals in being able to comprehend it.
Slavery as a Natural Institution
Aristotle opines that slavery is not a manmade institution but a natural one. It must therefore
be retained and maintained. He believed in natural inequality of mankind. In support of his
plea Aristotle divides men into two groups, one in whom nature has implanted the governing
principle and the other, people in whom the submitting principle is planted.
Aristotle disapproved slavery by law i.e. slavery by force as it happens in case of prisoners of
war. He opined that all barbarians i.e. those who are not Greeks furnish the natural order of
slaves. He thus, introduced a racial theory of politics.
Propositions
Aristotle’s theory of slaver rests upon two propositions
1) By nature, men are unequal and divided with respect to their capacities for virtue.
2) It can be determined who is virtuous and non-virtuous

Aristotle supports and justifies Slavery

It secures the best conditions for the slave. A slave shares his master’s life and therefore in a
way his excellence. Slavery is justifiable when it leads to the attainment of virtue by the
master through the leisure it affords him.
Natural Inequality of Mankind: Men are by nature unequal with respect to their capacities
for virtue. There are persons who possess high sense of reason and who are fit to command.
Likewise, there are other persons whose intellectual standards is low and who are fit to obey
only.
Superior Rule over Inferiors: some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only
necessary, but expedient from the hour of birth, some are marked out for subjection, others
for rule.
Manifestation of the General Rule: Aristotle opines that slavery is one more manifestation
of the general rule of nature of subordination of the inferior to the superior.
Useful to both Master and Slave: Slavery is useful not only for the master, it is equally
useful to the slave himself. A slave’s association with his master brings him derivative
excellence. By providing leisure to the master, a slave enables him to attain virtue.
Necessary for the welfare and security of Family, Society and State: Each natural
household requires slave for his proper management. Hence slavery is an essential part of
natural management. A slave is necessary for the maintenance of a family. Efficient
management of state depends upon the leisure of its citizens. This can be provided only by
the slaves who looks after the needs of the household.
Physical Distinction: Aristotle opines that nature has made a distinction between the bodies
of freemen and slaves, she made strong for servile labour, and the former upright. They are
required to participate in the political life of the state both in times of war and peace. Thus,
some men, are by nature free and other’s slaves.
In accordance with the scheme of the household: In the scheme of household there is a
union of elements in a single compound. To maintain the scheme of household, there should
be supremacy of one element and subordination of another. This combination of command
and obedience is essential to achieve any human purpose.
Justified on moral Grounds: Aristotle opines that the master is endowed with moral
superiority whereas the slave is morally inferior. If he is admitted to the family, he not only
becomes a good servant but a good man. In case he is not admitted to the family, the higher
products of civilisation would not be possible and his moral sense could not have been
developed at all.
Justification of Slavery on conquering war: Aristotle opines that, as it is just and fair to
hunt against wild animals, so is it against men who though intended by nature to be governed
did not submit.
Limitations of Slavery
Slavery by Nature or by Law: A distinction should be made between a slave by nature and
a slave by law.
No Legal Sanction: Aristotle does not approve of Slavery by law
Friendly Behaviour: While dealing with the slave, the master must not misuse his authority,
he should be kind to his slave.
Emancipation: The slave should be given the hope and, also the opportunity of
emancipation.
CRITICISMS
Against the forces of Teleology: Man is created by nature to attain a good life. But in case,
nature itself has made a certain body of people as brutes, slavery cannot be regarded as
natural but unnatural because it will go against the very purpose of nature.
Illogical: The Aristotelian doctrine of natural superiority and inferiority sounds very illogical.
It is rather difficult to see the moral or intellectual value of a distinction which gives a man
the status of a beast while admitting that he has not ceased to be a man.
Classification Unjustified.: Aristotle holds that human beings can be divided into two
classes superior and inferior. It cannot be said that any person or a group of persons lacks the
capacity of virtue.
No Criteria for Classification: Aristotle has not fixed any criteria for dividing human
beings. In such a case it cannot be determined whether a person belongs to the superior class
or inferior class.
Racial Prejudice: Aristotle held that all non-Greeks are barbarians and furnish the natural
order of slaves. He is of the opinion, that war prisoners, if they are non-Greeks, may be
justifiably made slaves. This view appears to have been evolved due to his racial prejudice.
Inconsistency: On the one hand Aristotle recommended a human treatment of slaves by the
master, on the other he treated slaves as animate instruments of action who cannot apply
reason.
Unreasonable and Self Contradictory: Aristotle treats the slave as animate instrument of
action who is not capable of applying reason. In that case majority of the industrial workers
who hardly acquire any initiative would be reduced to the status of slaves which is not
reasonable. While the slave is a piece of property of animate kind, he simultaneously holds
that the slave should be given some share in the law and, also provide some chances of
emancipation. It is difficult to reconcile these contradictory stands of Aristotle.
Contradictory to Social Justice: on the one hand he considers the slave essential to enable
the masters to devote themselves fully the services of the society but on the other hand he
does not acknowledge their importance or properly reward them for their services.
It is evident from the above discussion that Aristotle’s view on slavery have met with severe
criticisms at the hand of the modern thinkers, however it must be noticed that they must be
judged in the context of the conditions prevailing during those times for the stability of the
city states.
 Plato’s Theory of Education
The concept of Education occupies a prominent place in the ‘Republic’ of Plato. It emerges
from his philosophical thinking. It is intimately connected with his views on the nature of the
state and the end which every free citizen should strive to attain. Plato simply transformed the
existing system of education to fit for the realisation of his ideal state.
The Athenians concentrated on intellectual and cultural activities. As a result, they neglected
self-discipline and stability in character. It was given to the private institutions and the pupils
were trained in many subjects with the aim of making them better citizens. In Sparta, there
was a rigorous system of state training. At the age of seven, the Spartan youth was taken
away from his parents and his education was entrusted to an official of the state. The state
was controlling all aspects of education. Unlike the Athenian system, children of both the
sexes were given education in Sparta.
In his theory of Education, he combines the curriculum of Athens and the organisation of
Sparta. He is responsible for a great innovation in the educational system particularly higher
education prevailing from the age of twenty to thirty-five.
Plato’s Theory of Education
Plato’s sees in education the only true way to stability of the state. He clearly saw that
education was more than just acquiring the basic facts and ideas in one’s childhood and
adolescence. He was the first to propose an elaborate system of adult training and education.
No Direct Teaching: In the Platonic system of Education, the main criteria of education is
simply to bring the soul into a surrounding. Since the mind is active, objects are not presented
to it, instead it directs itself to the objects. It moves towards every object of its environment
because there is in it an attraction towards every object.
Reminiscence: In this theory there is something called the theory of Reminiscence.
According to this theory our soul has seen in former life, all things which it learns in this
world, and our learning is a mere remembrance of that life.
Instruments of Education: Plato found in literature the main instrument of education. Besides
there might be an elementary knowledge of some art and the rudiments of sciences of
numbers and figures. The second instrument of education was gymnastics. In early life the
main instruments of bringing out what was best in the soul were first, literature beginning
with stories of children and going on to poetry, secondly music and thirdly plastic arts in
general.
Life Long Education
Plato held in Republic that education was a matter of a lifetime. During Infancy and
Childhood, the soul is more susceptible to fancy and imagination. Hence the character is
trained through emotions. During adolescence reasoning power develops. The soul is
searched through reason. Here education means the development of the understanding
through science and philosophy. In Youth, education would be both physical and intellectual.
It would aim at the acquisition of truth. Plato pleads giving same type of education to both
boys and girls. He believes there is no difference in kind between the native capacities of
boys and girls.
Plato’s Scheme of Education
Plato’s scheme of education represents a state controlled system of compulsory education for
both sexes. The system of education is divided into two stages called Elementary and Higher
Education. Elementary Education is training of the youth and of the military class. There is
also cultivation of virtues of courage, self-control and discipline. Higher Education is the
training of the middle aged. It is the training of the ruling class or the guardians.
Elementary Education
First Stage: Up to the age of six, the lessons of good manners and good taste is given more
importance than imparting of instruction. A child should learn simple religious truths as well
as to like and dislike things. The elementary education begins with the training in music.
Second Stage: From six to eighteen years, it will be supplemented by music for the soul or
mind and gymnast for the body. The education should be both physical and intellectual.
Music comprises of literature, poetry and fine arts and gymnastics include bodily exercises,
diet and medicine.
Third Stage: After eighteen years, education was to be general education in music and
gymnastics and in elements of science, mathematics and history. In the three stages of
elementary education i.e. from one to twenty years there was to be given exclusive training in
gymnastics and military science in order to prepare them for the defence of the country in
case of any eventuality or war.
Higher Education for the Guardians
First Test: When they arrive at the age of twenty, they face the first elimination test of what
they have learnt all these years. Those who fail, will be assigned the economic work of the
community, businessmen, clerks, factory workers and farmers. Those who pass, will receive
ten more years of education and training in body and mind. This stage is for the guardian
class. Its aim is to make selected few the guardians of the state. The course at this stage, to
make recipients wise, includes study of maths, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and logic.
Second Test: At thirty, a second selective test will be held. The less gifted will become the
auxiliaries and executive aides and military officers of the state. The more gifted undergo
another five years of training. They now study mathematics and develop their power of
dialectics.
Practical Education after Thirty-Five: At Thirty-Five guardians occupy positions of
authority in the state. They now get practical experience through dealing with the day to day
problems for fifteen years. Education does not come to an end here. Instead, so long as the
individuals are receptive to knowledge, they may continue education. Plato opines that
merely a perfect type of education may create a perfect state. The political authority should
be blended with broadest knowledge and culture and the philosopher should be the
embodiment of highest political virtue, spirit, swiftness and strength.
Curriculum of Education
Plato’s Education aims at realisation of truth. Plato puts emphasis on the mind, body and
soul. For this reason, he divides the curriculum into three parts.
Bodily Development: To Plato, bodily development is of utmost importance in education.
This is achieved not merely through exercises and gymnast activity but also through
regulated and controlled diet.
Educational Impression: Even though much importance is attached to bodily development,
even greater importance is attached to mental development. Plato recommended the teaching
of mathematics as of supreme importance. It is the firm belief of Plato that the teaching of
mathematics can remove many mental defects. In addition, teaching of astronomy is of great
significance.
Training in Music: With a view to achieve balance in education, Plato stresses the value of
musical training as a supplement to training in gymnastics. Music helps in the development
of the soul. The child’s curriculum should be purged of all literature and music which tends
to generate cowardice, weakness, selfishness and egoism.
Criticisms
Plato’s theory of Education has been criticized on several grounds
➢ Limited: Plato’s education is confined mainly to a particular class and knowledge as
such becomes the monopoly of the philosopher guardians.
➢ Major portions of life are devoted to education alone. One will not find time for other
pursuits.
➢ Training of philosophical rulers would not create practical rulers. Rather it would
produce academic theorists who are unfit for ruling.
➢ Censorship of artistic and poetic works is highly objectionable. Art and Literature can
never flourish under state censorship.
➢ The scheme of education is not logical in so far as there is no relation between one
stage and the other.
➢ There is no provision for imparting the art of administration. The philosopher king
who is to administer the state is not given any training in the art of administration.
➢ The long process of education, extending up to thirty-five years of age, will not only
be expensive but would also kill the initiative in men till that age. The scheme in that
case is self-defeating.
Importance.
➢ The value of Platonic education cannot be undermined. This education system
anticipated many modern theories of education.
➢ This system aimed at spiritual uplift of the individual, similar to modern liberal
education
➢ The reformative value of this education system cannot be overlooked. He attempted a
reform of the haphazard education that prevailed in Greece in those times.
➢ Plato deserves credit for emphasizing that education must aim at moral as well as
physical development.
********