Third Edition Spring 2013 - Institute of East Asian Studies, UC ...

dence leaders, most notably India’s first prime minister, JawaharlalNehru. As the German political scientist Michael Liebig pointed outin a recent presentation, one view “contends that the Indian independencemovement needed Kautilya vis-à-vis the colonial powerin order to demonstrate that the ancient Arthashastra was at parwith, or even superior to, the ancient and medieval works of Europeanpolitical theory, for example, Machiavelli’s The Prince.” 27 Thediscovery of indigenous political and economic ideas dating backto the third century BCE—long before Western scholars wouldindependently develop similar ideas—became a great source ofpride for Indians. As Liebig stated in his presentation, Kautilya is“present in the Indian public mind as a ‘metaphor’” for “(1) thecunning politician getting the job done, and (2) the historical personalitywho unifies India.” 28 Thus, Kautilya is part of the “broadspectrum of Indian politico-cultural icons” 29 consisting of such figuresas “Buddha, Asoka, Akbar, Aurobindo, Gandhi, and Nehru,” 30who helped unify, metaphorically or literally, India.As Liebig demonstrated, Kautilya’s importance to the Indiannationalists of the 20th century lay in his iconicity and in theArthashastra’s incredible political and economic ideas. This is notthe entire extent of Kautilya’s significance to the nationalist movement,however, as the nationalists were also drawn to his idea ofa pan-Indian state. As mentioned earlier, the Mauryan Empire thatKautilya and Chandragupta built was the first state to span the Indiansubcontinent. Kautilya himself writes of his desires for the kingto be a world conqueror, stating that only after “Having conqueredthe earth with its people of distinct castes and divisions of religiouslife, should [the king] enjoy it by governing it in accordance withthe duties prescribed to kings.” 31 Thus, the Arthashastra’s legendaryauthor believed that the ideal king would be a world conqueror.While world conquest and the creation of a pan-Indian statemay appear to be entirely different ideas, Roger Boesche claims27 Gautam, P.K. Endogenous Politico-Cultural Resources: Kautilya’s Arthashastraand India’s Strategic Culture28 Ibid.29 Ibid.30 Ibid.31 Kautilya. Arthashastra. Translated by R. Shamasastry. Bangalore: GovernmentPress, 1915, 475-493that the two are in fact synonymous. Boesche claims that “Kautilyaapparently meant by the phrase ‘conquering the world’ somethinglike conquering up to what Indians regarded as the natural bordersof India, from the Himalayas all the way south to the IndianOcean, and from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal.” 32 In fact,Kautilya mentions in Book IX of the Arthashastra that “Country(space) means the earth; in it the thousand yojanas of the northernportion of the country that stretches between the Himalayasand the ocean form the dominion of no insignificant emperor.” Thisregion described as the “world” simply refers to the extent of theIndian subcontinent, bound in the north by the Himalayas and inthe south, east, and west by water. Therefore, Kautilya believes thata true world conqueror needs only control the region of India, asopposed the entire world.This makes Kautilya one of the earliest—if not the earliest—proponentsof a pan-Indian state. This was of particular importanceto the Indian nationalists, who were fighting to establishan Indian-controlled state spanning the entire subcontinent. Thenationalists saw the Arthashastra as a potential source of historicalsupport for their idea of a single Indian nation. Kautilya and theArthashastra were, thus, significant to the Indian nationalists forthree reasons: (1) the legendary Kautilya’s iconicity; (2) the Arthashastra’spolitical and economic ideas, which preceded its Westerncounterparts; and (3) the Arthashastra’s envisioning of a singlestate spanning the Indian subcontinent.Although Kautilya and the Arthashastra were important tothe Indian nationalist movement, their significance faded immediatelyafter India and Pakistan gained independence. However,Kautilya’s importance as an icon is once again on the rise. MichaelLiebig believes that Kautilya and his fellow Indian politico-culturalicons have the potential to have a huge impact on the modernworld, provided India can promote its diverse, yet cohesive culturalresources in a manner similar to China’s promotion of Confucianism.33 This means that India can make Kautilyan thought as well32 Roger Boesche, “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in AncientIndia,” The Journal of Military History, 67, no. 1 (2003): 9-37.33 Gautam, P.K. Endogenous Politico-Cultural Resources: Kautilya’s Arthashastraand India’s Strategic Culture65 Ramanathan Veerappan Kautilya’s Arthashastra 66