Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

http://www.allaboutbharat.

org/post/Chanakya-Niti-PDF-Download
Book Details
English
Miles Davis.
Hindi
Mihir Chandra Sharma
Sanskrit
Commentary by Iswar Chandra Sharma Shastri
Telugu
Dr. Pullele Sriramachandrudu
These books are currently out of copyright in India as per the Indian Copyright
Act 1957. Please check copyright law within your country before downloading the
books. In case of any issues send us an email.
About Chanakya Niti
ChanakyaIn ancient India (321-296 B.C.) a unique economic policy and law were se
t forth by Chanakya (Vishnu gupta), who was a great statesman, economist, philos
opher and law-giver. Samakaraya wrote in his commentary on Kamandaka's Nitisara,
"Vishnugupta is the name given at the naming ceremony and Chanakya and Kautilya
are connected with the birth-place and Gotra respectively." The name Kautilya c
ontains to some extent, an error. The Gotra (tribal name) of Chanakya was Kutla
and hence Chanakya, as a descendant of that Gotra, must be called as Kautalya. T
he ancient manuscripts of the Arthasastra consist of the name Kautalya. Prof. Bh
andarkar opined, "for the promotion of truth and history, the name Kautilya shou
ld be discarded and Kautalya must be adopted." However, substituting the name Ka
utalya in place Kautilya is not an easy task as innumerable writers mention the
'distorted' name Kautilya in their books and essays. However, the name Chanakya
is connected with the birth-place of Vishnugupta and has been popularly used by
writers and readers."
The ancient economist wrote two books (as far as we know), the treatise called t
he "Arthasastra" or the Science of Economics, and the "Chanakya Niti Shastra," w
hich laid a strong foundation 2300 years ago for the founding of one of history'
s greatest empires, the Mauryan Empire. Chanakya's protege was no less than empe
ror Chandragupta Maurya, who rose from a lowly background to carve out the large
st empire India had known up to that time, and ruled it from 325 to 273 BC. His
grandson was no less than Ashoka, whose monuments and symbols still stand in Ind
ia and adorn the Indian flag. The Chanakya Niti is still read today by aspiring
corporate strategists trying to understand the qualities of a good leader.
Chandragupta was a great warrior and adventurous king and he obtained effective
guidance from Chanakya for conquering weak and mismanaged states as well as for
consolidating gains and accelerating tempo of development in the empire in order
to meet requirements of the government and promote welfare amongst subjects. It
has been aptly remarked, "As any sudden military revolution is followed by an e
qually great statesman's work, a war-like figure like that of Chandragupta deman
ds a statesman like wisdom like that of Kautilya, who alone can render the new u
nique empire secure, with its administrative machinery and fiscal management wel
l founded". No doubt, Chanakya played a pivotal role in the formation of the Mau
rya empire and in the promotion of all round development within the empire.
Chanakya hailed from the ancient university of Takshashila or Taxila in modern-d
ay Pakistan. He also wrote the Chankya Niti or Nitishastra, which historians say
dates from the period 321-296 B.C. Its slightly archaic style is well in agreem

ent with the claim. It is also testified by various early Indian writers. who ha
ve given quotations from it. The Chanakya Niti is a selection of sutras, pithy v
erses, that convey much about the ideal way of life. 455 sutras comprise the doc
ument and reflect Chanakya's astute mind and his phenomenal vision and clarity.
216 of these sutras have to do with Rajaniti, the art of governing a kingdom. Th
ese sutras may very well have played a big role in the grooming of Chandragupta
Maurya and other disciples of Chanakya.
The Chanakya Niti consists of expert knowledge regarding espionage, maintenance
and mobilization of army, general administration, diplomacy, management of agric
ulture, forestry, animal husbandry; industrial production and so forth. His cont
ribution in the field of political science is undoubtedly laudable. He set forth
his opinion regarding the elements of sovereignty, remedies against external an
d internal troubles of the government, enforcement of rights and duties amongst
various grades of administrative staff, etc. For the enforcement of law and orde
r in the empire, criminal and civil laws were also prescribed.
Though the book had a profound influence on various writers and rulers in Indian
history, the book and its author were lost to knowledge when the British ruled
India. It was only a century ago that they came to light again. A manuscript of
the Chanakya's Arthashastra, and with it, a commentary on a small part of it by
a writer named Bhattaswamin, was handed over by a Pandit (scholar) to the Mysore
Government Oriental Library. Mr. Shamasastry published the English translation
of the text in 1915 (J.F. Fleet, 1914, Introductory Note, Kautilya's Arthasastra
translated by Dr. R. Shamasastry). The original text consists of some obsolete
words. Credit goes to Dr. Shamasastry for translating the contents in English an
d bringing it to the notice of scholars and the general history of ancient India
. Second and third editions were published in 1923 and 1929.
Translators accept that perfect translation and a correct interpretation of the
text is a difficult task. Dr. Shamasastry writes "Still I shall feel highly rewa
rded for my labors, if it proves a stepping-stone for others to arrive at a corr
ect interpretation. For want of necessary diacritical marks, the translation of
the Sanskrit words could not be made as thorough as it ought to be." The differe
nce in the translation work of scholars are due to difference in interpretation
by the concerned translators. Although possibilities lie that in future the new
translations by erudite scholars might point out some new interpretations. Most
likely, in spite of a few differences in the interpretations of those erudite sc
holars, there does not arise the possibility of adverse affects on the basic con
tents of the book.
The Authenticity of Kautilya or Chanakya
As the authenticity of the Arthasastra has been questioned by scholars of standi
ng like Professors Keith and Winternitz, we propose to examine some of the argum
ents advanced by them in support of their theory with a view to demonstrate thei
r inconclusiveness.
(1)Dr. Winternitz refers to the verse in which Kautilya says that he had taken t
he kingdom from the Nandas and remarks that the real minister in a book written
by the order of or intended for his king would not have written such words, for,
it could not have been very pleasing to the king. The verse under reference is
a piece of internal evidence which goes to confirm the traditional story in the
Puranas of Kautilya's part in the revolution which resulted in the overthrow of
the ruling Nanda dynasty of Magadha and the establishment of the Mauryan dynasty
.
This verse is, therefore,
writer of the extant work
buted not a little to the
the new dynasty. Without

valuable as it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the


of the Arthasastra is the same Kautilya who had contri
overthrowing of the old dynasty and to the founding of
this verse which is indeed significant the work will n

ot appeal to us as the accredited writing of the first Mauryan Chancellor. The o


bjection that it is a thing not likely to have been pleasing to the king is no a
rgument. Kautilya will not stand to lose by writing thus. There is a baseless ve
rsion that Chandragupta was not a Kshatriya but of a mixed caste. Granting that
he was a Kshatriya, a true Kshatriya monarch of ancient days would not unduly tak
e on himself the credit which legitimately belonged to others. And if it were a
fact that Kautilya took up arms openly against the reigning dynasty and helped t
he succeeding dynasty in securing the throne there is no reason for the king to
feel displeased at such a statement.
Dr. Winternitz translates the verse as follows:" This text-book has been compose
d by him, who quickly and impatiently raised the Arthasastra (from former imperf
ect text-books) passed his sword and took the earth that had passed to the Nanda
s (out of their hands)." We can have it translated thus: "This treatise was writ
ten by him by whom the Sastras (not necessarily the Arthasastra), the science of
weapons and the earth that had passed to the Nanda kings were soon and in jealo
us anger raised aloft." According to V. A. Smith the Nanda king who was deposed
and slain by Chandragupta was of low caste and a heretic hostile to the Brahmana
s and the Kshatriyas. He further remarks that "the nine Nandas were considered t
o be unholy persons unworthy of inclusion in orthodox Hindu annals". Then it is
clear that during the period of the Nandas that both the sastras of the Brahmani
cal science and the .Shastra or the Kshatriya science, were in a neglected and d
ecadent condition. This receives corroboration from the Asokan Edicts where Asok
a expresses in certain places the neglect of certain institutions and the practi
ce of some aspects of dharma by his predecessors. The elevation to the throne of
an orthodox King like Chandragupta led automatically to the elevation of both t
he shastra and the Sastra. Kautilya who could have played no mean part in bringi
ng about this happy consummation, has expressed in this verse his contempt for t
he Nandas and his relief at the succession of Chandragupta. As I have said elsew
here he compliments the king by complimenting himself. The verse is then a visib
le demonstration, by Kautilya, of his satisfaction at the new state of affairs o
f the kingdom with Chandragupta at its head. And rightly Professor Jacobi reads
into these lines "the proud self -consciousness of a great statesman of the Indi
an Bismarck"! as he calls Kautilya.
(2) There is another statement as explicit as this which mentions that the work
was mainly intended for his king (Narendra). Why he felt called upon to undertak
e this arduous task can be easily explained. Previous to the epoch of the Nandas
and the 1lauryas we have not definitely alighted upon any historical ground. If
we are going to believe tradition once again, there were a number of short-live
d dynasties coming and going, commencing with Parikshit. In these centuries appa
rently a number of ArthaHtstra teachers and also schools sprang up in the land,
and each teacher or follower of a certain school was pushing forward his or its
own theory of the state and administration. Kautilya mentions twelve writers on
polity who were all his predecessors. He could not afford to neglect them. He of
ten refers to their views either to refute, or to accept them. Kautilya's missio
n was, it would appear, to critically examine the floating theories on polity as
befits the statesman at the helm of affairs of a great empire, and strike at so
me definite proposals conducive to the good government of the state, and yet in
accordance with the traditions of the land. The Narendra who was no other than C
handragupta Maurya must have been pleased with the work, for something definite
was presented to him to follow, and by following which he could have the supreme
satisfaction of being able to administer the land on right lines.
(3) Another argument is that the contents of the Artlzasastra do not justify the
assumption that it is the work of a statesman but only of a Pandit. From the co
ntents of the work it is unthinkable that the hand of the statesman is not prese
nt in it. Dr. Winternitz has taken pains to select one or two passages wherein K
autilya has loosely expressed his views, and on the strength of such slender bas
is, he dismisses the author as a mere Pandit. No one can deny for a moment that

there are some places where Kautilya is not definite or assertive. It is probabl
e that in these particulars he was not quite convinced of the prevailing opinion
s; still expediency might have dictated such a policy under certain circumstance
s. In such places he could have subordinated his opinion to that of the others.
Apart from this construction any other cannot be placed on the so-called weak po
ints in the treatise. But at the same time it is pertinent to remark that there
is much truth in the statement that it is the work of a Pandit. And who is a Pan
dit? He who is deeply versed in a science or sciences is a Pandit. If Kautilya h
ad not established his reputation as a great author on administrative science, v
iz. 1 statecraft, no one would seriously think of his work or attach any value t
o it. The king would not have ordered a layman to write for him a manual on stat
ecraft.
Further only the highly learned Pandits occupied superior positions in the gover
nment as ministers, councillors, judges, etc. If Kautilya had not been a Pandit
he would have been unworthy to hold the Chancellorship of a new government which
indeed involved serious responsibilities. The fact was that in ancient times th
e high class Pandits (the sishytas and Lishytas of the Dharmasastra literature)
carried on the civil administration of the realm while the military administrati
on was exercised by the Kshtriya monarch. This does not mean that there was a cu
t and dried military or civil department which only this class or that class cou
ld monopolise. The departments were interdependent and by co-operation everythin
g went on smoothly. Examples of Pandits who had been the soul of administration
from both traditional and historical accounts are not wanting. There is the trad
ition of Vasishtha, the Purohita of king Dasaratha.
Here the king did not take the initiative in any affair without previous consult
ation with and advice of his Guru and friend Vasishtha. In medieval times we kno
w of Vidyaranya, the minister of the Vijayanagar emperor, Bukka. He was also kno
wn as Madhavacharya, the worthy brother of the worthy Sayana, the celebrated com
mentator of the Vedas. As there was another minister by name Madhava - we can ap
propriately call him Madhava Vidyaranya.
This Vidyararyya was both a Pandit and statesman. The Brhat-Katha informs us tha
t Katyayana, the famous jurist, was a minister of the Nanda kings. At a period s
o late as the 17th century we find a Pandit Govinda Dikshitara as the minister o
f the Tanjore kings. These were Pandit-statesmen, or statesmen pandits who have
gloriously adorned many an enviable station in every Hindu state.
Under this category comes Kautilya. He was a Pandit of a rare order as also a ke
en statesman. If he were a mere Pandit he would not have cared for the opinions
or the theories of his predecessors. He would give us a new work completely orig
inal wherein controversial theories would have been rigidly excluded. For example
treatises on similar subjects like the Sukranitisara or Barhaspatyasastra do no
t at all discuss the opinions of their predecessors. much less contemporary v1ew
s. Rarely do they mention even the names of such treatises. But by discussing ot
her views with care and attention which they deserve, Kautilya shows himself mor
e than a Pandit, and having been acclimatised with the practical administration
of the land we can call him a Pandit-statesman. If in a few places he has shown
himself a Pandit, in many places he shows himself a statesman.
There is no need to call attention to these special passages. But a reference ma
y be made to a statement of Dr. Jolly himself who remarks that Kautilya must hav
e been "an official in a state of medium size where he had obtained insight into
the working of the administration. This means that the German scholar is prepar
ed to grant that Kautilya possessed an intimate or first hand knowledge as regar
ds the different methods of working an administration. If it could be conceded t
hat he was an official, it strengthens the position which we have taken that he
was more than a mere Pandit. Tradition affirms that he was an official of much m
ore importance, viz., the Chief Minister. No purpose is served by denying a fact

, and the fact was that Kautilya was the Chancellor of Chandragupta. E. H. Johns
ton remarks: "If it is wrong on the one hand to read into it (the Arthastistra)
the ideas of a great statesman or a deep political thinker, on the other hand ha
lf its value is missed by treating it as the pedantic theorisings of a Pandit. L
ater on Johnston shows how Kautilya is profoundly practical in his prescriptions
. Suffice it to say here that statesmen in ancient India were generally from the
Pandit's class though particular instances of statesmen from other classes are
not lacking.
http://www.hindisahityadarpan.in/2012/01/complete-chanakya-neeti-in-hindi.html
http://www.crossword.in/books/corporate-chanakya-marathi/p-books-9788184953213.h
tml

Вам также может понравиться