These days politicians are being dubbed as being the Chanakya of their political parties. This is because of various reasons such as their policy-making capabilities or their ability to control power. Today, Chanakya is often dubbed as the creator of dirty politics, but is it so?
Taking a look into the deep history, in the 3rd century BC, we find a helpless son, who had to flee from his birthplace to an unknown arena, miles away. This son later trained his disciple into the first king to have an empire spread pan India.
There is scant information on Chanakya, but he is known to be India’s greatest statesman.
The most famous episode that shows Chanakya’s cunningness is that of King Porus. Chanakya took the help of King Porus to defeat Dhananandain return for half of Dhanananda’s kingdom for the effort. After the victory, Chanakya sends visha kanyas to Porus’s chamber in the guise of arranging pleasure for the king. These maidens assassinated Porus, thus creating a way for Chandragupta. Chanakya also used various tactics to get Rakshas, the minister on Chandragupta’s side. He was the brains behind the Mauryan Kingdom.
After consolidating power, Chanakya laid strict ethical codes for administration during peace, along with an elaborate structure for social security of the weak and oppressed in Arthashastra. Though there are many passages in Chanakya Neeti that are misogynic in nature, it too provides a highly ethical code for society to abide by.
Chanakya has been dubbed as the Machiavelli of India, but I believe that to be a Eurocentric idea. There are 2 reasons, I believe, to prove that Chanakya is much more superior to Machiavelli, firstly Chanakya’s period is 1700 years before that of Machiavelli and secondly, Chanakya’s works of statecraft and politics are more comprehensive. The theories of Chanakya differ from that of Machiavelli. Chanakya asks the king only to forego ethics in the times of war and against enemies, whereas for Machiavelli, politics is devoid of ethics at all times, and is only a means to attain power. Chanakya was a successful politician. We can argue about the ethics of his methods, but he laid the foundation of the first Indian empire that brought peace and prosperity to a highly populous area. The legacy of Machiavelli is ruthless colonization, the slave trade, and the extermination of many cultures.
I do agree that Chanakya used the principles of sama, dama, dand, and bhed to fulfill his revenge but that is not his legacy. Every coin has two sides. His legacy is in the two books attributed to him, Chanakya Neeti and Arthasashtra, where he covers all aspects of administration.
People think Arthashastra is an acknowledgment that politics can no longer be moral; it must be fought through every means available, but I differ in opinion.
However, I do agree that when news anchors equate politicians with Chanakya, they valourize the amoral, pragmatic politics espoused in the Arthashastra.
I believe that taking the good from something and leaving the bad behind is the best solution. The strategist is a product of his culture and times. Every strategist has his way. Thus, even if we compare today’s politicians with Chanakya, we should do it with the good part of him.
Chanakya’s relevance today is increased by the fact that the Arthashastra is rich in ideas, concepts, and methodologies useful in the art of governance. Many key messages of the Arthashastra are universal, as is the case with the teachings of numerous ancient Indian texts.
It is best to think of the future by having a glance at the past and working in the present.