Was Chanakya’s Arthashastra really followed by kings?

Chanakya’s Arthashastra, composed around the 4th century BCE, is considered one of ancient India’s most sophisticated treatises on statecraft, economics, and military strategy. Attributed to Chanakya (also known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta), the legendary marketing advisor of the Maurya Empire, this manual provides a complete guide for rulers on governance, international relations, and administration.

However, the crucial question remains: how much was the Arthashastra actually used by kings in ancient and medieval India? An examination of ancient facts, inscriptions, and comparative political practices reveals that while many rulers drew inspiration from its ideas, its direct utility varied considerably across dynasties and periods.

The most direct evidence of the influence of the Arthashastra comes from the Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE), where Chanakya served as the prime minister of Chandragupta Maurya. The text’s emphasis on centralized administration, espionage, and monetary law shaped Mauryan rule. For example:

• Bureaucratic structures: The Arthashastra’s elite class of ministers (amatyas), spies (gudhpurushas) and revenue officials (samahartris) closely mirrors the administrative size described in Megasthenes’ Indica, reflecting Chandragupta’s highly prepared empire.
• Financial regulations: The Mauryas implemented land sales structures and state-managed exchange, consistent with Chanakya’s prescriptions for state wealth (Artha). The Arthashastra’s emphasis on mines, agriculture and taxation shows parallels in Ashoka’s edicts, which reference state supervision of resources.
• Espionage and international relations: Chandragupta’s use of spies and diplomatic strategies during the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty reflects Chanakya’s ruthless pragmatism, particularly his doctrine of Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed (compromise, bribe, punishment and division).
• However, Ashoka’s later inclination towards dhamma (ethical rule) was different from Chanakya’s realpolitik, indicating that even within the Maurya dynasty, the influence of Arthashastra was no longer absolute.

After the Mauryas, the visibility of Arthashastra in ancient texts diminished, although traces of its standards remained:

• Gupta Empire (4th-6th century AD): The Guptas aspired to a more Decentralised feudal system, but their judicial and administrative codes, including those recorded in the Smritis of Yajnavalkya and Narada, echo Chanakya’s views on justice and social order.
• South Indian Kingdoms: Here the influence of Arthashastra is less direct, but texts such as the Tirukkural (Tamil literature) and the inscriptions of the Cholas and the Pallavas reiterate similar views on taxation, conflict and ethics in governance.
• Medieval Rajput and Deccan rulers: Kings like Bhoja of Malwa and Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara made reference to Niti (politics) texts inspired by Chanakya, though often mixed with Dharmashastra traditions.

The Turk and Mughal invasions (12th–18th centuries) marked a great departure from classical Indian political texts. While some rulers like Akbar used strategic diplomacy in tribute to Chanakya, Islamic statecraft largely drew inspiration from Persian traditions like the Replication for the Literature of Princes. Arthashastra was almost lost until its rediscovery by disciple R. Shamashastri in 1905, reflecting its limited movement in later times.

Why was Arthashastra not universally observed? Several factors offer explanations for its uneven application:

• Moral versus practical governance: Many kings inspired by Dharmashastras preferred religious legitimacy over Chanakya’s immoral realism.
• Local variations: Local customs regularly rendered the text’s rigid frameworks obsolete (for example, there was no direct Arthashastra example of Chola maritime trade guidelines).
• Practical complexity: Its exhaustive forms (for example, 32 types of taxes) became potentially impractical for small states.

Despite its sporadic implementation, the Arthashastra continued as a theoretical cornerstone of Indian political thought. Today, its techniques are studied in military academies and commercial enterprise schools, proving its timeless insights into power dynamics. While kings may not have followed it literally, Chanakya’s genius lay in presenting an adaptable framework – one that inspired rulers over the centuries to balance cruelty with wisdom.

In the end, the Arthashastra became more than a rigid manual, a repository of strategic information, followed by select kings who valued its practical brilliance but adapted it to their contexts. Its real impact does not lie in not in general adherence but in its enduring role as the “art of the possible” in Indian statecraft.