Shishupala-vadha (Study)

by Shila Chakraborty | 2018 | 112,267 words

This page relates ‘Amatya according to Kautilya’ of the study on the Shishupala-vadha (in English) in the light of Manusamhita (law and religious duties) and Arthashastra (science of politics and warfare). The Shishupalavadha is an epic poem (Mahakavya) written by Magha in the 7th century AD. It consists of 1800 Sanskrit verses spread over twenty chapters and narrates the details of the king of the Chedis.

Amātya according to Kauṭilya

“Even an undertaking easy (in itself) is (some times) hard to be accomplished by a single man, how much (harder is it for a king) especially (if he has) no assistant to govern a prosperous kingdom”.31a

So, Manu says—

“api yat sukaraṃ karma tadapyekena duṣkaram |
viśeṣato'sahāyena kimu rājyaṃ mahodayam ||” 7.55 ||[1]

Without help of ministers or amātya a king can not govern his prosperous kingdom. Kauṭilya also discussed about the appointment of ministers and the competence of them. Kingship is possible only with the aid of a assistants; a single wheel can not work a chariot; therefore a king should appoint ministers and listen to their opinions. He says–

“sahāyasādhyaṃ rājatvaṃ cakramekaṃ na vartate |
kurvīta sacivāṃstasmātteṣāṃ ca śṛṇuyānmatam[2] ||” (1.7.9) 33

State affairs or service under the crown depends upon the advices of the ministers of a king. So the selection of ministers is an important or a vital work or duty of a king.

“The higher officers of the state are usually referred as amātyas. In particular, the adhyakṣas and some others like the dharmastha and the pradeṣ ṭṛ are regarded as amātyas (2.9.1, 3.1.1, 4.1.1). There grades of amātyas are, however, recognised–the highest, the middling and the lowest–according to the degree of qualifications possessed by them. A number of qualities expected in an amātya are mentioned and the means of ascertaining how far a person possesses any of those qualities are described (1.9.1-3). There is a discussion on the class of persons from amongst whom officers are to be selected. Referring to the verous opinions held by the earlier teachers on this question, Kauṭilya expresses himself in favour of appointing persons of different types to posts that may be suited to the qualities they may possess (1.8.1-29) It seems that the appointment of the head of a department is to be made by a royal order. Such an officer is described as adhikaraṇe śasnasthaḥ ‘mentioned in a decree with reference to an office or department’ (2.9.19).

Another name for an executive officer is yukta ‘one who is appointed or employed.’ There are yukta, upayukta and tatpuruṣa in every department (2.5.16). Of these the yukta is obviously the head of the department, the upayukta is a subordinate officer, of whom there may be more than one in a department, while the tatpuruṣas are servant of the lowest category.

Persons possessing the qualities of sattva, spirit, prajñā, intelligence and vākyaśakti, power of expression, are sometimes referred to as suitable for state service (1.11.19). However, it is naturally regarded as of the utmost importance that the person should be a man of proved integrity and loyal to the rular. In order to find out if am officer is honest and loyal, the earlier teachers had recommended four secret tests called upadhās. The first, dharmopadhā, was intended to find out if he is susceptible to suggestions to join a conspiracy against the king because ostensibly the purohita has been dismissed by the king. The arthopadhā sought to find out if he is susceptible to the same suggestion when a large gin is promised to him. The bhayopadhā was meant to find out if he joins a conspiracy when degraded along with other officers. And the kāmopadhā was intended to find out if he is prone to entertain the suggestion that the queen is in love with him (1.10.2-12). After describing these tasts, the text adds Kauṭilya’s own opinion that the king or the queen should not be brought in for the purpose of these tests. For, he argues, suggestions about joining a conspiracy against the king or about the queen being in love with him may take deep root in the officer’s mind and that may prove disastrous. This is no doubt true. But Kauṭilya does not seem to have any objection to these tests as such; he only wants the reference to the king and the queen to be kept out of them. But it is difficult to see how in the tests as described such a reference can be avoided. As a matter of fact, the tests, as described, appear to be highly impracticable. For, they can hardly be used on the extensive scale that would be necessary when so many officers have to be appointed. If used extensively, they would lose their secrecy. And there would be the practical difficulty of seemingly dismissing the purohita or the senāpati every time that an officer is to be put to the test of dharma or artha, or of putting officers under wholesale arrest whenever an officer is to be put to the test of bhaya. The names of the four tests suggest rather different kinds of tests. It seems possible that dharmopadhā is only a test to find out if the officer is pious or not, arthopadhā to find out if he is cowardly or brave and Kāmooadhā to see if he is a likely to be corrupt or not, bhayopadhā to find out if he is cowardly or brave and Kāmopadhā to see if he is a voluptuary or not. Simple tests to discover these traits, without bringing in the king or the queen, are easy to conceive. That the original purpose of these tests was to find out the presence or absence of these taits is shown by the recommendation that those who pass the dharma test should be appointed as dharmasthas or judges and pradeṣṭṛs or magistrates-cum police-officers, those who pass the artha test as samāhartṛ saṃnidhātṛ, those who pass the bhaya test as officers serving in close proximity to the king saṃanidhātṛ the king, and those who pass the kāma test as officers keeping the king company in his entertainments (1.10.13).”[3]

The scholars of pre-Kauṭilya were enough thoughtful about the competence of minister. Among them Bhāradvāja says—

“sahādhyāyino'mātyan kurvītadṛṣṭaśaucasāmarthyatvāt’ iti bhāravdājaḥ ‘te hyasya viśvāsyā bhavanti’ iti | na iti viśālākṣaḥ sahakrīḍitatvāt paribhavantyenam | ye hyasya guhyasadharmāṇastānamātyan kurvīta, samānaśīlavyasanatvāt te hyasya marmajñabhayānnāparādhyanti’ iti | sādhāraṇa eṣa doṣa’ḥ iti parāśarāḥ, ‘teṣāmapi marmajñabhayāt kṛtākṛtānyanuvarteta |’ (1.8.1-8)[4]

‘He should make his fellow-students his ministers, their integrity and capability being known (to him)’ says Bhiāradvāja ‘For, they enjoy his confidence.’

‘No’ says viśālākṣa. ‘Having been his play-mates, they treat him with disrespect. He should make those his ministers who are of a like nature to him in secret matters, since they have the same character and vices. For, through fear that he is conversant with their secrets they do not offend him’.

‘This defect is common (to both)’; say the followers of Parāśara. ‘For, through fear that they too are conversant with his secrects, he would acquiesce in what they do and what they omit to do.”[5]

From the above text we get the word ‘guhyasadharmāṇaḥ ; It means

“parastrīvyāmohādirūpa gopanīya—durgūṇena svasamāna yoga kṣemāḥ |”

Acquisitions and preservations of addiction to women etc. infatuation which is equal to the kings secret bad quality. (As it is seen in the Arthaśastra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, Part-I, page. 80).

He also says—

“sāvadbhyo guhyamācaṣṭe janebhyaḥ puruṣādhipaḥ | avaśaḥ karmaṇā tena vaśyo bhavati tāvatām | ye enamāpatsu prāṇavādhayuktāsvanugṛhnīyustān amātyan kurvīta, dṛṣṭānurāgatvādi ti | (1.8.9-10)[6]

“To as many persons the lord of men communicates a secret; to so many does he become subservient, being helpless by that act (of his).

‘He should make those his ministers who may have helped him in calamities involving danger to life, since their loyalty is (thus) proved’.[7]

‘na’ iti piśunaḥ | ‘bhaktireṣā na vuddhiguṇaḥ | saṃkhyātārtheṣu karmasu niyuktā ye yathādiṣṭamarthaṃ saviśeṣaṃ vā kuryustānamatyan kurvīta, dṛṣṭaguṇatvāditi |” (1.8.11-13)[8]

‘No’, says piśuna. ‘This is devotion, not a trait of intellect. He should make those his ministers who, when appointed to tasks, the income from which is calculated (beforhand), would bring in the income as directed or more; since (thus) their qualities are proved’.[9]

‘na’ iti kauṇapadantaḥ | ‘anyairamātyaguṇairayukta | hyete | pitṛpaitāmahānamātyan kurvīta, dṛṣṭāvadānatvāt | te hyenamapacarantamapi na tyajanti, sagamdhatvāt | amānuṣeṣvapi caitad dṛśyate | gāvo hyasagandhaṃ gogaṇamatikramya sagandheṣvevāvatiṣṭhante, iti’ | (1.8.14-19)[10]

‘No,’ says kauṇapadanta. ‘For, these are not endowed with other qualities necessary in a minister. He should make those his ministers who have came (as hereditary servants) from his father and grandfather, since their pure conduct is known. They do not desert him even when he misbehaves, being of the same kin. This is observed even among animals. For, cattle, passing by a herd of cattle not their kin, abide only with those that are their kin.[11]

‘na’ iti vātavyāghiḥ | ‘te hyasya sarvamavagṛhya svāmivat pracarantīti | tasmānnītividī navānamātyan kurvīta | navāstu yamasthane daṇḍadharaṃ manyamānā nāparādhyantī’ ti | (1.8.20-23)[12]

‘No’ says vātavyādhi. ‘For, bringing under their control everything belonging to him they behave like masters (themselves). Therefore, he should make new men well-versed in politics his ministers. New men, endeed, looking upon the wielder of the Rod as occupying the position of Yama, do not give offence’.[13]

‘na’ iti vāhadantīputraḥ | śāstravidadṛṣṭakarmā karmasu viṣādaṃ gacchet | tasmād abhijanaprajñā—śaucaśauryānurāgayuktānamātyan kurvīta, guṇaprādhānyāditi | (1.8.24-26)[14]

‘No’ Says Bāhudantīputra. ‘one, conversant with the science, (but) not experienced in practical affairs, would come to grief in (carrying out) undertakings. He should appoint as ministers such (persons) as are endowed with nobility of birth, intellect, integrity, bravery and loyalty, because of the supreme importance of qualities (in this matter)’.[15]

Accepting those said opinions Kauṭilya says—

‘sarvamupapantamiti’ kauṭilyaḥ | kāryasāmarthyāddhi puruṣasāmarthyaṃ kaḍpyate, sāmarthyataśca | vibhajyāmātyavibhavaṃ deśakālau ca karma ca | amātyaḥ sarva evaite kāryāḥ syurna tu mantriṇaḥ || (1.8-27-29).[16]

‘Everything (stated above) is justifiablie’, says Kauṭilya. For, from the capacity for doing work is the ability of a person judged. And in accordance with their ability, by (suitably) distributing rank among ministers and assigning place, time and work (to them), he should appoint all these as ministers, not, however, as councillors’.[17]

Here “amātyabibhava-bibhava is wealth, might: amātyabibhava here refers to rank of ministers. This is to be determined by one’s sāmarthya (capability)

So, Kauṭilya says—

‘kāryasāmarthyāt puruṣasāmarthyaṃ kalpate’ |

By sarvamupapannm-Kauṭilya says all the views of professors smṛtikāras etc. are correct to some extent, that is amātya should be dṛṣṭaśaucasāmarthya, samānaśīlavyasana, parasparamarmajña dṛṣṭānurāga, dṛṣṭaguṇa, pitṛpitāmahāgataḥ, tataśca dṛṣṭāvadātaḥ, nītivid, abhijanaśaucaśauryānurāgaśca, kāryasāmarthyayukkaḥ as declared in all above views. Here amātya is sahāyaka constant minister assigned with proper porfolios assigning spheres of work, but mantrins’s are councillors of mantrisabhā |

Manu says—

“maulān śāstravidaḥ śurān lavdhalakṣān kulod bhavān sacivān saptacāṣṭau vā prakurvīta parīkṣitān |”

(As it is seen in the Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, Part-I, p-83).

Kauṭilya stated the qualities of amātya and their varieties He says—

“jānapado'bhijātaḥ svavagrahaḥ kṛtaśilpaścakṣuṣmān prājño dhārayiṣṇurdakṣo vāgmī pragalbhaḥ pratipattimānutsāhaprabhāvayukkaḥ kleśasahaḥ śucirmaitro dṛḍhabhaktiḥ śīlavalārogya; sattva—saṃyukkaḥ stambhacāpalyavarjitaḥ saṃpriyo vairāṇāmakarte— tyamātyasampat | ataḥ pādārdhaguṇahīnau madhyamāvarau |”1.9-1-2).[18]

“A native of the country, of noble birth, easy to hold in check, trained in the arts, possessed of the eye (of science), intelligent, persevering, dexterous, eloquent, bold possessed of a ready wit, endowed with energy and power, able to bear troubles, upright, friendly, firmly, devoted, endowed with character, strength, health and spirit, devoid of stiffness and fickleness, amiable (and) not given to creating animosities,-these are the excellences of a minister. One, lacking in a quarter and a half of these qualities is the middling and the lowest (type, respectively)”.[19]

King should test this ministers through upadhā. Upadhā is a system pretending the amātys. king should test the purity or impurity of ministers. This is called upadhā.

From the above text we come to know that ministers are of three types i.e. those ministers who have all above said qualities are first type 2. Those who have lacking in a quarter and a half of these qualities is the middling and 3. The lowest type respectively.

It is explained in the Arthaśāstra by Kauṭilya that how they are examined.

“teṣāṃ janapadamavagrahaṃ cāptataḥ parīkṣeta, samāna —vidyebhyaḥ śilpaṃ śāstracakṣuṣmattāṃ ca, karmārambheṣu prajñāṃ dhārāyiṣṇutāṃ dākṣyaṃ ca, kathāyogeṣu vāgmitvaṃ prāgalbhyaṃ pratibhānavattvaṃ ca; āpadi utasāhaprabhāvau kleśasahatvaṃ ca; saṃvyavahārācchaucaṃ maitratāṃ dṛḍhabhaktitvaṃ ca; saṃvāsibhyaḥ śīlabalārogyasattvayogam astambham acāpalyaṃ ca; pratyakṣataḥ saṃpriyatvamavairatvaṃ ca |” (1.9.3)[20]

“Of these (qualities), he should make inquiries about nationality, nobility of birth and tractability from (his) kinsmen, test his (training in) arts and possession of the eye of science through those learned in the same science, learn about his intelligence, perseverence and dexterity from his handling of undertakings, test his eloquence, boldness and presence of mind on occasions of conversation, his energy and power as well as ability to bear troubles during a calamity, his uprightness, friendliness and firmness of devotion from his dealings with others, learn about his character, strength, health and spirit as well as about freedom from stiffness and fickleness from those living with him, (and) about his amiability and absence of a disposition to animosity by personal observation.”[21]

He also says–about the affairs of a king—

“pratyakṣaparokṣānumeyā hi rājavṛttiḥ, svayaṃdṛṣṭaṃ pratyakṣam, paropadiṣṭaṃ parokṣam, karmasu kṛtenākṛ—tāvekṣaṇam anumeyam” | (1.9.4-7).[22]

‘For, the affairs of a king are (of three kinds, viz.,) directly perceived, unperceived and inferred what is seen by (the king) himself is directly perceived what is communicated by others is unperceived (by him). Forming an idea of what has not been done from what is done in respect of undertakings is inferred’.[23]

Kauṭilya a says about the importance or necessity of ministers—

“yaugapadyāttu karmaṇām anekatvāt anekasthatvāt ca deśakālātyayo mā bhūt iti parokṣamamātyaiḥ kārayedityamātyakarma |”(1.9.8)[24]

‘But because of the simultaneity of undertakings, their manifoldness and their having to be carried out in many different Places, he should cause them to be carried out in many different places, he should cause them to be carried out by ministers, unperceived (by him), So that there may be no loss of place and time. So, far the work of (Appointing) ministers’.[25]

In this context K. Roy said about the works of ministers.

“The affairs (vṛtti) of kings are of three types those directly pereceived (pratyakṣa,) those known from others (parokṣa) and those to be inferred. Pratyakṣa is what is seen by the king derectly (svayamātmanā dṛṣṭam), parokṣa is what is conveyed or reported by others, and inferrable are those that are arrived at about undone deeds (akṛta) from that are be done (kṛtena) in undertaking, parokṣa deeds are to be performed through the ministers, for these should be done (immediately and) simultaneously and because these deeds are many and await quick disposal in very many places. Thus there will be no loss of time and place in such execution. These are works of the amātya.

(As it is seen in the Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, part-I, p.86).

We come to know from this text that:

“The number of minister is determined by the power or exigencies of the state. The number may be increased if the king thinks that the ministers selected by him can not do justice to the volume of work which they are required to perform”.[26]

“Kauṭilya has given a detailed list of the qualities in a minister. A minister shoul be a native of the country, born of high family, influential, well trained in arts, far-sighted, wise, of good memory, vigilant, eloquent, bold, intelligent, endowed with enthusiasm and dignity, capable of endurance, pure in mind and actions, well-disposed, firmly devoted to the king, possessing good character, physical strength, sound health and spiritedness, free from arrogance and fickleness and affectionate (who would not have recourse to hatred even when offended by the king). According to Kauṭilya ministers are of three kinds, best, middling and inferior, of which the first must be endowed with all the qualities mentioned above and the other two are deficient by one quarter and a half respectively’.[27]

If any situation arises that some necessary action would be accepted by the king then he would call his ministers council and taking their opinion king would come to conclusion.

So Kauṭilya says—

‘ātyayikekārye mantriṇo mantripariṣadaṃ cāhūya brūyāt | tatra yadabhūyiṣṭhāḥ kāryasiddhikaraṃ vā vruyustatkuryāt |’(1.15.58-59)[28]

‘In an urgent matter, he should call together the councillors as well as the council of ministers and ask them. What the majority among them declare or what is conducive to the success of the work, that he should do’.[29]

In the tenth chapter of the Arthaśāstra it is discussed about the ascertainment—of the integrity or the absence of integrity of ministers by means of secret tests. King should appoint ministers to his deeds by secret test named dharmopadhā, arthopadhā, Kamopadhā and bhayopadhā.


“mantripurohitasakhaḥ sāmānyeṣvadhikaraṇeṣu sthapayitvā'mātmānupadhābhiḥ śaucayet |” (1.10.1)[30]

‘After appointing ministers to ordinary offices in consultation with the councillors and the chaplain, he should test their integrity by means of secret tests’.[31]

Here in above text ‘samanyeṣu means ‘common’, i.e. not carrying any responsiblity’.[32]

King should test the ministers with morality or by the speech of morality. Kauṭilya says about this–

“purohitam ayājyayājanādhyāpane niyukkam amṛṣyamāṇaṃ rājā avakṣipet | sa satribhiḥ śapathapūrvamekaikam amātyam upajāpayet “adhārmiko'yaṃ rājā, sādhu dhārmikam anyamasya tat kulīnam avaruddhaṃ kulyam ekapragrahaṃ sāmantam āṭavikamaupapādikaṃ vā pratipādayāmaḥ sarvaiṣāmetadrocate, kathaṃ vā tava” iti | pranyākhyāne śuciḥ | iti dharmopadhā |”(1.10.2-4)[33]

‘The King should (seemingly) discard the chaplain on the ground that he showed resentment when appointed to officiate at the sacrifice of a person not entitled to the privilege of a sacrifice or to teach (such a person). He should (then) get each minister individually instigated, through secret agents, under oath, (in this manner): ‘This king is impious; well, let us set up another pious (king), either a claimant from his own family or a prince in disfavour or a member of the (royal) family or a person who is the one support of the kingdom or a neighbouring prince or a forest chieftain or a person suddenly risen to power; this is approved by all; what about you? If he repulses (the suggestion), he is loyal. This is the test of piety”.[34]

In above text the word “śapathapūrvam’ means “i.e, the amātyas are first made to swear that they will not desclose what is being suggested to them” “tatkulīna” means “this word is used to refer to a claimant or pretender to the throne from the rular’s family”.[35]


“(arthasampādanopāyakathanavyājena tataparīkṣā) ‘senāpatirasatpragraheṇāvakṣiptaḥ satribhirekaikam amātyamupajāpayellobhanīyenārthena rājavināśāya—‘sarveṣāmetadrocate, kathaṃ vā tava’ iti | pratyakhāne śuciḥ | iti arthopadhā |” (1.10.5-6)[36]

‘The commander of the army, (seemingly dismissed by reason of support given to evil men, should get each minister individually instigated, through secret agents, to (bring about) the king’s destruction, with (the offer of) a tempting material gain, (saying): ‘this is approved by all; what about you?’ If he repulses (the suggestion), he is upright. This is lest of material gain’.[37]

Here the meaning of the word:

asatpragraheṇaḥ means the senāpati is ordered by the king to honour evil men, which he refuses to do, that is then made the ground for his dismissal. This is hardly possible in view of the use of the expression elsewhere,… It is the support given to worthless persons by the senāpati that is made the ostensible ground for his seeming dismissal”,

arthopadhāḥ the name is due to the offer of money involved in it”.[38]


(kāmapūraṇopāyakathanavyājena tatparīkṣā) “parivrājikā lavdhaviśvāsā'ntaḥpure kṛtasatkārā mahāmātramekaikam upajapet—“rājamahiṣī tvāṃ kāmayate kṛtasamāgamopāyā | mahānarthaśca te bhaviṣyatīti | pratyakhyāne śuciḥ | iti kāmopadhā |” (1.10.7-8)[39]

‘A wandering nun, who has won the confidence (of the different ministers) and is treated with honour in the palace, should secretly suggest to each minister individually: ‘The chief queen is in love with you and has made arrangements for a meeting (with you), besides, you will obtain much wealth’. If he repulses (the proposal), he is pure. This is test of lust’.[40]

Here, ‘Parivrajikā also called bhikṣuki is a secret agent’.[41]


“(prāptabhayanivāraṇopāyakathanavyājena tatparīkṣā)

pravahaṇanimittam eko'mātya sarvānamātyanāvāhayet | tenodvegena rājā tānavarundhyāt | kāpaṭikaścātraḥ pūrvāvaruddhasteṣāmarthamānāvakṣiptamekaikamamātyamupajapet—; “asatpravṛtto'yaṃ rājā, sādhu enaṃ hatvā anyaṃ pratipādayiṣyāmaḥ sarveṣām etadrocate, kathaṃ vā tava” iti | pratyakhyāne śuciḥ | iti bhayopadhā | (1.10.9-12)[42]

“On the occasion of a festive party, one minister should invite all the (other) ministers. Through (seeming) fright at this (conspiracy), the king should put them in prison. A sharp pupil, imprisoned there earlier, should secretly suggest to each of those ministers individually, when they are deprived of property and honour, (in this manner): ‘This king is behaving wickedly; well, let us kill him and install another; this is approved by all; what about you?’ If he repulses (the suggestion), he is loyal.

This is the test of fear’.[43]

In above text the word Pravahaṇa means—

“jalasthalayoḥprayāṇe sādhanabhūtaṃ nau—dolādikaṃ pravahaṇāmityucyate | atratu tatsahāyeṇa kriyamāṇa jalakrīḍādikam abhipretam

(As it is seen in the Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, part-I, p. 89).

In above text:

Pravahaṇa is a festive party (prahūyante, smin svajanamitrānīti prahavaṇam udvāhādir utsavaḥ) or a picnic (prītibhojana).

Tenaudvegena: the fright is dua to an apparently suspected conspiracy of the ministers.

Bhayopadhā: the name has reference to the fear in which the arrested ministers live.”[44]

To select proper or lawful minister King should take help from some spys named satrī, partivrājikā and Kāpatika. Mainly satrī helps to the king to select ministers through dharmopadhā and arthopadhā. Parivrājikā helps to the king through kāmopadhā and kāpatika helps through bhayopadhā.

King should appoint ministers in different places through the above tests. In this context Kauṭilya says that—

(evaṃ parīkṣitānāṃ tattadyogyatānuguṇakāryaviśeṣeṣu niyojanam)

“tatra jharmopadhāśuddhān dharmasthīyakaṇṭakaśodhaneṣu karmasu sthapayet | arthopadhāśuddhān samāhatṛsannidhātṛnicayakarmasu, kāmopadhā—śuddhān bāhyābhyantaravihārarakṣāsu, bhayopadhāśuddhānāsannakāryeṣu rājñaḥ | sarvopadhāśuddhān mantiṇaḥ kuryāt | sarvatrāśucīn khani dravyahastivanakarmānteṣu upayojayet |” (1.10.13-14).[45]

“From among them, he should appoint those proved loyal by the test of piety to posts in the Judiciary and for suppression of criminals, those proved upright by the test of material gain to offices of the Administrator and in the stores of the Director of Stores, those proved pure by the test of lust to guardianship of (places of) recreation inside (the palace) as well as outside, those proved loyal by the test of fear to duties near the (person of the) king. Those proved honest by all tests, he should make (his) councillors. Those (found) dishonest by every test, he should employ in mines, in forests for material produce, in elephant-forests and in factories’[46]

Here in the above text:

“The word bābhyābhyantaravihārarakṣāsu means bāhyam udhānādi, ābhyantaram antaḥpurādi’ understanding vihāra in the sense of vihārasthāna. vihāra, objects of pleasure, i.e., women, and bāhya i.e mistresses (bhoginī) and ābhyantara, i.e, queens (devī)’ is hardly acceptable.”[47]

Here dharmasthīya” means the practice about investigating for the special judgement of civil suit and the word Kaṇṭakasodhana means rules and regulations for those persons like spine who oppress the people in the state by theft etc. offence.

Preceptors have mentioned that—

trivarga bhayasaṃśuddhānamātyan sveṣu karmasu |
adhikuryādyathāśaucamityacāryā vyavasthitāḥ ||” (1.10.16)[48]

“He should appoint ministers, who have been cleared by the (tests of the) group of three (goals of life) and fear, to duties appropriante to them in accordance with their integrity, thus have the (ancient) teachers laid down.”[49]

“From these stanzas it is clear that Kauṭilya does lot agree with the traditional view regarding the tests in its entirety.”[50]

But Kauṭilya’s opinion is—

na tveva kuryādātmānaṃ devī vā lakṣyamīkharaḥ |
śauca hetoramātyanāmetat kauṭilya—darśanam ||
na dūṣaṇamaduṣṭasya viṣeṇevāmbhasaścaret |
kadācid hi praduṣṭasya nādhigamyeta bheṣajam || 
kṛtā ca kaluṣā vuddhirupadhābhiścatuvirdhā |
nāgatvāntaṃnivarteta sthitā sattvavatāṃ dhṛtau ||
tasmādvāhyamadhiṣṭhānaṃ kṛtvā cārye caturvidhe |
śaucāśaucamamātyanāṃ rājā mārgota satribhiḥ ||” (1.10.17-20)[51]

“However, under no circumstances must the king make himself or the queen the target for the sake of ascertaining the probity of ministers, this is the opinion of Kauṭilya. He should not effect the corruption of the uncorrupted as of water by poison; for, it may well happen that a cure may not be found for one corrupted. And the mind, perverted by the fourfold secret tests, may not turn back without going to the end remaining fixed in the will of spirited persons. Therefore, the king should make an outsider the object of reference in the fourfold work (of testing) and (thus) investigate through secret agents the integrity or otherwise of ministers”.[52]

From the above text we find the word Kauṭilyadarśana [Kauṭilyadarśana] It means the view of Kauṭilya. Darśana here is no philosophical or other ‘system’ ‘only opinion view’.[53]

King should perform his activities with the consultation of his minister and the counsel should be kept seeret by the preceptors. Otherwise the pourpose will not be successful. So, mantrarakṣ ṇ a is very much important for the king.

In this respect Kauṭilya discussed about mantrādhikāra and mentioned the opinion of his teachers.

(kartavya—kāryarambheṣu mantrālocana—tadagopanayoḥ āvaśyakatā) kṛtasapakṣa—

parapakṣopagrahaḥ kāryārambhāna cintayet | mantrapūrvāḥ sarvārambhāḥ | taduddeśaḥ saṃvṛtaḥ kathānāmaniḥ srāvī pakṣibhiraṇyanālokyaḥ syāta | śrūyate hi śukaśārikābhiḥ mantro bhinnaḥ śvabhiraṇyanyaiśca tiryagyonibhiriti | tasmānmantroddeśama anāyukto nopagacchet | ucchidyeta mantrabhedī | (mantrabhede sambhāvitānāṃ hetūnāma upapādanena manttarakṣaṇopāya kathanam) ‘mantrabhedo hi dūtāmātyasvāmināmiṅgitākārābhyām | iṅgitamanyathāvṛttiḥ ākṛtigrahaṇamākāraḥ |’ (1.15.1-9)[54]

‘When he has secured the allegiance of his own party and the party of the enemy, he should think of the undertaking of works. All undertakings should be preceded by consultation. The place for that should be secluded, not allowing talks to be heard outside, incapable of being peeped in even by birds. For, it is known that deliberations are divulged by parrots and starlings, even by dogs and other animals. Therefore, an unauthorised person must not approach the place of counsel. One who divulges secret counsel should be extirpated. Secret counsel is indeed betrayed by the gestures and the expressions of the envoy, the minister and the monarch. Gesture is behavior other than normal. The putting on af an expression (on the face) is expression.”[55]


mantrapurvāḥ sarvarambhāḥ (mantapūrvāḥ sarvārambhā:) means, all undertakings are to be preceded by consultation. ‘Taduddeśaḥ’, means both regions or aims, here it means, the region or place of counsel ‘kathānām aniḥśrāvī’ means, not allowing the talks to be heard or echoed outside”.

(As it is seen in the Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, Part-I p. 115).

By iṅgita (iṅgita) is meant some change in attitude (anyathāvṛtti) and ākāra is outward physical appearance.

In above text the word:

ākṛtigrahanam means—‘Putting on an expression other than natural, such as paleness of the face etc.”[56]

In this context Manu said—

“giripṛṣṭaṃ samāruhya prāsādaṃ vā rahogataḥ |
araṇye niḥśalākevā mantrayedavibhāvitaḥ ||” 7.147ˇ[57]

‘Ascending the back of a hill or a terrace, and retiring there in a lonely place, or in a solitary forest, let him consult with them unobserved.’[58]


niḥśalāke means solitary and some say that free from grass and so forth’.[59]

According to Medhātithi

“niḥśālākaṃ śalākā iṣīkāḥ yatra tṛṇamapi nāsti na yena kaścittiṣṭhatīti saṃbhāvanāsti tanniśalākamiti |

And according to Sarvajñanārāyana—

“niḥśalākaekānte, yatra kvāvyavibhāvito'nyairanupalakṣita iti |
“jaḍamūkāndhavadhirāṃstairyyagyonān vayogatān |
strīmlecchavyādhitavyaṅgāna mantrakāle'pasārayet ||” 7.149 ||[60]

At the time of consultation let him cause to be removed idiots, the dumb, the blind, and the deaf, animals, very aged men, women, barbarians, the sick, and those deficient in limbs.’[61]

“bhindantyavamatā mantaṃ tairyagyonāstathaiva ca |
striyaścaiva viśeṣeṇa tasmāttatrādṛto bhavet ||” 7.150 ||[62]

‘Such despicable persons, like wise birds and particularly women betray secret council, for that reason he must be careful with respect to them.’[63]

Kauṭilya also says about this in his Arthaśāstra i.e.,

tasya saṃvaraṇam āyukkapuruṣarakṣaṇamākāryakālāditi | teṣāṃ hi pramāda mada suptapralāpāḥ, kāmādirutsekaḥ pracchanno'vamato vā mantraṃ bhinatti tasmādrakṣenmatram |’ (1.15.10-12)[64]

“Concealment of that (and) vijilance over officers appointed (should be maintained) till the time of (completion of) the undertaking. For, their prattle through negligence or in intoxication or during sleep, their immoderation such as amorousness and the like or, a person concealed or despised, betrays secret counsel. Therefore, he should guard counsel.’[65]

King should keep secret the counsel. So, king should take decision. (mantrabhede doṣopādanapukkraṃ mantrakarturekatva matopapādanamata) ‘mantrabhedo hyayogakṣemakaro rājñastadāyukkapuruṣāṇāṃ ca | tasmāt guhyameko mantrayeta’iti bhāradvājaḥ | ‘mantriṇāmapi hi mantriṇo bhavānti teṣāmaṇyenye | saiṣā mantriparamparā mantraṃ bhinatti | ‘tasmānnāsya pare vidyuḥ karma kiñciccikīrṣitam | āravdharastu jānīyurāravdaṃ kṛtameva vā ||’ (1.15-13-17)[66]

“The divulgence of secret counsel is fatal to the security and well being of the king and the officers appointed by him. Therefore, he should deliberate alone over a confidential matter’, says Bhāradvāja. ‘For, even councilors have (other) councillors, and these have others still’. Thus this series of councillors leads to the divulgence of secret counsel. “Therefore, others should not know about any work sought to be done by him. Only those who undertake it should know (about it) when it is begun or even when it is actually completed’.[67]

According to viśālākṣa king should listen every opinion of every minister.

[mantrakarmaṇa vahujanasādhyatvopapādakamatam |]

“naikasya mantrasiddhirasti iti viśālākṣaḥ | pratyakṣaparokṣānumeyā hi rājavṛttiḥ | anupalābdhasya jñānamupalabdhasya niścitavalādhānamarthadvaidhasya saṃśayacchedanamekadeśadṛṣṭasya śeṣopalabdhiriti mantrisādhyametat | tasmād vuddhivṛddhaiḥ sārdhamadhyāsīta mantram || na kiñcidavamanyeta sarvasya śṛṇuyānmatam | bālasyāpyarthavadvākyamupayuñjīta paṇḍitaḥ ||” (1.15.18-22) 99

‘There is no attainment of deliberation by a single perso’, says viśālākṣa. ‘For, the affairs of a king are (three fold) directly perceived, unpercived and inferred. Coming to know what is not known, definite strengthening of what has become known, removal of doubt in case of two possible alternatives in a matter, finding out the rest in a matter that is partly known, this can be achieved (only) with the help of ministers. Therefore, he should sit in counsel with those who are mature in intellect. ‘He should despise none, (but) should listen to the opinion of every one. A wise man should make use of the sensible words of even a chield.’[68]

From the above opinion king should collect the knowledge of councel. According to piśuna that king should consult those ministers who are approved for the particular undertakings.

[ nirdiṣṭaviṣayāprakāśenaiva mantrakarmakaraṇa matama]

‘etanmantrajñānam, naitanmantrarakṣaṇam’ iti parāśarāḥ | yadasya kāryamabhipretaṃ tatpratirupakaṃ mantriṇaḥ pṛcchet—“kāryamidamevamāsīdevaṃ vā yadi bhavettat kathaṃ kartavyamiti te yathā vrūyuḥ tata kuryāt | evaṃ mantropalabdhi saṃvṛtiśca bhavati’ iti | [tannirasanena, tat tat kāryajñaiḥ sarvaiḥ sākaṃ mantrakaraṇamatam |] na iti piśunaḥ | ‘mantriṇo hi vyavahitamarthaṃ vṛttamavṛttaṃ vā pṛṣṭamanādareṇa vruvanti prakāśayanti vā | sa doṣaḥ | tasmāt karmasu ye yeṣvabhipretāstaiḥ saha mantrayeta tairmantrayamāṇo hi mantrasiddhiṃ guptiṃ ca labhate’ iti |” (1.15.23-31)[69]

‘This is ascertainment of counsel, not guarding of counsel’, say the followers of pāraśara. ‘He should ask the councillors concerning a matter exactly similar to the undertaking he has in mind, “this work was like this, or, if it were to happen like this, how then should it be done?’

As they might advise, so should he do that (work). In this way is counsel ascertained and secrecy maintained at the same time”.

‘No’, says piśuna. ‘For, councillors, questioned about a remote affair, whether it has taken place or not, give their opinion with indifference or disclose it. That is a defect. Therefore, he should deliberate with those who are approved for the particular undertaking. Holding counsel with these (only), he achieves success in consultation as well as its secrecy.”[70]


abhipretāḥ means approved, i.e. considered by the king as experts in the particular matter—’[71]

Mentioning his masters opinion Kauṭilya presented own opinion elaborately.

[vistareṇa svamatopapādanam]

“na iti kauṭilyaḥ anavastha hyeṣā | mantribhistribhiścaturbhirvā saha mantrayeta | mantrayamāṇo hyekenārthakṛccheṣu niścayaṃ nādhigacchet | ekaśca mantrī yatheṣṭamanavagrahaścarati | dvābhyāṃ mantrayamāṇo dvābhyāṃ saṃhatābhyāmavagṛhyate, vigṛhītābhyāṃ vināśyate | tat triṣu caturṣu vā naikāntaṃ kṛcchreṇopapadyate | mahādoṣamupapannaṃ tu bhavati | tataḥ pareṣu kṛcchreṇārthaniścayo gamyate, mantro vā rakṣate | deśa kālakāryavaśena tvekena saha dvābhyāmeko vā yathāsāmarthaṃ mantrayeta |” (1.15.32-41)[72]

English version is:

‘No’,. Says Kauṭilya, For this is a condition without fixity. He should hold consultations with three or four councillors. For, holding a consultation with one (only), he may not (be able to) reach a decision in difficult matters. And a single councillor behaves as he pleases without restraint. Holding consultations with two, he is controlled by the two if united and ruined by them if at war (with each other). With three or four, that becomes possible (only) with difficulty. However, if it does become possible, it involves great danger. With more (councillors) than that, it is with difficulty that decisions on matters are reached or counsel guarded. However, in conformity with the place, time and work to be done, he should deliberate with one or two or alone by himself, according to (their and his own) competence.”[73]


anavasthā means—because every time the king would be consulting new men and there would be no stable group of councillors to advise the king. ”

In this respect it is said in śrimūlā commentary—

“tatakarmābhipretaiḥ saha mantraṇāṅgīkāre karmaṇāṃ bahutrād bahuprakāratvācca mantrīyattānavadhāraṇaprasaṅgaḥ” |[74]

Yathāsāmartha [Yathāsāmartham] means according to his own and the councillors’ capability Kauṭilya mentioned about pañcāṅgamantra.

[ mantrasya aṅgapañcakasampannatvopapādanam | mantraṇarītiśca ]

“karmaṇāmārambhopāyaḥ puruṣadravyasampad, deśakālavibhāgaḥ vinipātapratīkāraḥ, kāryasiddhiriti pañcāṅgo mantraḥ | tānerkekaśaḥ pṛcchet samastāṃśca | hetubhiścaiṣāṃ matipravivekān vidyāt | avaptārthaḥ kālaṃ nātikrāmayet | na dīrghakālaṃ mantrayeta | na ca teṣāṃ pakṣīyairyeṣāmapakuryāt |” (1.15-42-46)[75]

English version is:

‘The means of starting undertakings, the excellence of men and materials, (suitable) apportionment of place and time, provision against failure (and) accomplishment of the work-this is deliberation in its five aspects. He should ask them individually as well as jointly. And he should ascertain their different opinions along with (their) reasons (for holding them). Having found a matter (for deliberation) he should not allow time to pass. He should not deliberate for a long time, nor with the partisans of those to whom he would (like to) do harm.”[76]

Kauṭilya mentioned the opinion of teachers about the number of ministers and own opinion also.

[mantrānvayayogya mantrisaṃkhyāviṣaye matabhedāḥ, svāmataṃ ca]

‘mantripariṣadaṃ vdādaśamātyan kurvīta’ iti mānavāḥ | ‘ṣoḍaṣa iti vārhaspatyaḥ’ | ‘viṃśatim ityauśanasāḥ’ | ‘yathāsāmarthyam’ iti kauṭilyaḥ |” (1.15-47-50)[77]

‘He should appoint a council consisting of twelve ministers,’ say the followers of Manu. ‘Sixteen’, say the followers of Bṛhaspati. ‘Twenty’, say the followers of Uśanas’. ‘According to capacity’ says Kauṭilya.”[78]

[adhikāre niyuktānāma eteṣāṃ kartavya—vyavasyā |] te hyasya svapakṣaṃ parapakṣaṃ ca cintayeyuḥ | akṛtārambham āravdhanuṣṭhānam anuṣṭhitaviśeṣaṃ niyogasampadaṃ ca karmaṇāṃ kuryuḥ | āsannaiḥ saha kāryāṇi paśyet | anāsannaiḥ saha patrasampreṣaṇena mantrayeta | indrasya hi mantripariṣadṛṣīṇāṃ sahasram | sa taccakṣu | tasmādimaṃ dvayakṣaṃ sahasrākṣamāhuḥ |” (1.15-51-57)[79]

They should think over the (king’s) own party and the enemy’s party. And (they) should bring about the commencement of what is not done, the carrying out of what is commenced, the improvement of what has been carried out and the excellence of (the execution of) orders, in the case of works. He should look into the affairs with those who are present. With those who are not present he should hold consultations by sending out letters”.

Indra indeed has a council of ministers consisting of a thousand sages. He has that as his eye. Therefore they call him ‘the thousand eyed one; though he is two eyed.”[80]


akṛtārambha [akṛtārambham] means, points to future works; arabdhānuṣṭhānam refers to both past (ārabdha) and present. Anuṣṭhāna means doing of what is undertaken, and anuṣṭhitaviśeṣam points to merits of deeds done before in past; this is to scrutinise past deeds to take experience and results therefrom; so as to apply this in present and future work too”.

(As it is seen in the Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, part-I, p. 112).

In this context Manu also says—

āyatiṃ sarvakāryānāṃ tadātvaṃ ca vicārayet |
atītānāṃ ca sarveṣāṃ guṇadoṣau ca tattataḥ ||” 7.178 ||[81]

“Let him fully consider the future and the immediate results of all undertakings, and the good and bad sides of all past actions.”[82]

“āyatyāṃ guṇadoṣajñastadātve kṣipraniścayaḥ |
atīte kāryaśeṣajñaḥ śatrubhirnābhibhūyate |” 7.179 ||[83]

“He who knows the good and evil which will result from his acts in the future, is quick in forming resolutions or the present and understands the consequences of past events will not be conquered.”[84]

[vahvapāyasandarbhe rājñaḥ kāryam]

“ātyayikekārye mantriṇo mantripariṣadaṃ cāhūya bruyāt |
tatra yadbhūyiṣṭhāḥ kāryasiddhikaraṃ vā vruyūstatkuryāt |
kurvataśca— nāsya guhyaṃ pare vidyuḥ chidraṃ vidyāt parasya ca |
gūhet kūrma ivāṅgāni yatsyādvivṛtamātmanaḥ ||
yathā hyaśrotriyaḥ śrāddhaṃ na satāṃ bhoktumarhati |
evamaśrutaśāstrarthī na mantraṃ śrotumarhati ||” 1.15.58-61 ||[85]

“In an urgent matter, he should call together the councillors as well as the council of ministers and ask them. What the majority among them declare or what is conducive to the success of the work, that he should do. And while he is doing that, the enemies should not come to know of his secret; he should, however, find out the weaknesses of the enemy. He should conceal, as a tortoise does his limbs, any (limb) of his own that may have become exposed. Just as a person not learned in the Veda does not deserve to eat the śrāddha-meal of good persons, so a (king) who has not learnt the teaching of the science of (politics) is unfit to listen to counsel.”[86]

In this context Kāmandak said in his Nītisāra.

“dhṛte'pi mantre mantrajñaiḥ svayambhūyo vicārayet |
tathā varteta tattvajño yathā svārthaṃ na pīḍayet ||”

And Manu also comments the same as the Arthaśāstra.”

Ministers are the main helper of the king. Without help of the ministers king is unable to run efficiently his administration. So appointment of minister is very important.

1. In the Arthaśāstra it is described vividly about the ability of ministers with the different views along with Kauṭilya’s opinion.

Manu also described about the ability of ministers.

2. According to Kauṭilya uttama minister should have twenty five qualities. (1.9.1).

Manu also discussed some main qualities of minister. But not vividly discussed like Kauṭilya. (7/54).

3. The function of royalty is to be known from visible, invisible and inferential situations. (Since many actions are to be performed at the same time. There should not be any laps as the work of a minister is often not apparently visible.

The opinion of both Kauṭilya and Manu is the same.

4. According to Kauṭilya King should appoint ministers by righteous allurement, monetary offers, allurement of love and allurement of fear. So according to Kauṭilya there are four types of allurement.

But in the Manusaṃhitā Manu also said about allurement. He mentioned only about allurement. The types of allurement are not mentioned by him. But the commentator Medhātithi disussed about four types of allurement clearly. (7/54).

5. It has been discussed elaborately in the Arthaśāstra about the appointment of the tested ministers according to their ability. Kauṭilya also says his separate opinion about this.

Manu said the quality of ministers and they would also be tested.

6. King should appoint ministers knowing their ascertainment of the integrity or their absence of integrity by means of secret tests. About this matter Kauṭilya gave his opinion separately. It is said in the Arthaśāstra. (1.10.13-15).

In the Manusaṃhitā Manu said, king should appoint ministers according to their heroic or powerfulness and comparatively timidity. (7/62).

7. In the Arthaśāstra it is also said that the appointment of ministers will be given in different posts who were tested through different upadhās (1.10.5)

In the Manusaṃhitā Manu also said that king should appoint some qualified tested ministers according to their heroic or powerfulness, brevity, honesty and comparative timidity. The particular post is not clear according to different types of allurement here.

8. In the Arthaśāstra Kauṭilya said that there are three categories of minister i.e. uttama, maddhama and adhama. (1.9.1.)

But in the Manusaṃhitā there are no such categories like uttama etc. Here it is mentioned about seven or eight ministers would be appointed primarily (7/54). Beside this king may appoint some additional ministers according to his necessity (7/61-62). It seems that these additional ministers are the ministers of second category which are mentioned in the Arthaśāstra. Exact number of the ministers are not mentioned by Kauṭilya (1.15.47-50) He said iyathāsāmaryayam’ |

9. Which subjects would be discussed with the ministers are not clearly mentioned in the Arthaśāstra. Kauṭilya says that king should discuss all subjects along with pañcāṅgamantra with his ministers. (1.15.42).

But in the Manusaṃhitā king should discuss about every matter with his ministers, but he should discuss about sixfold policy etc. secret subjects only with Brāhmin minister (7/58). So it seems that the Brāhmiṇ Minister is the first category uttama of minister according to Kauṭilya. That Brāhmiṇ Minister is well versed in the Arthaśāstra.

Here it is not discussed about pañcāṅgamantra.

10. Both in the Arthaśāstra and the Manusaṃhitā it is said that king should listen to every ministers opinion separately but the decision should be according to the king.

11. Exact number of the ministers are not mentioned in the Arthaśāstra. Kauṭilya says king should appoint ministers according to his necessity.

But in the Manusaṃhitā it is said that ministers should be seven or eight (7/54). In the verse (7/61) sixty one of the seventh chapter Manu says that king should appoint another additional ministers according to his necessity. But these ministers must be skillful, clever and free from sloth. This point more or less is same with the view of the Arthaśāstra.

12. It is said in the Arthaśāstra that the king should not play any tricks with his ministers for which they cross thir limits (1.10.6). It is also said here that the king and the queen will not be involved while testing the purity of ministers.

In the Manusaṃhitā it is not clearly said about this. But it seems that intention of both Kauṭilya and Manu is same.

13. In the Arthaśāstra it is said that for testing the purity of ministers the spies who help in this task are known a satrī. (1.10.3)

Yet Manu mentioned only allurement but the opinion of commentator Medhātithi and Kauṭilya’s opinion is same. Medhātithi agreed about the activity of spy named satrī while testing the purity of ministers.

14. It is mentioned in the Arthaśāstra that the number of appointed ministers according to Manu and his followers are twelve but if we go through the Manusaṃhitā we can see that there the number of appointed ministers are seven or eight.

15. Manu and Kauṭilya give importance on the appointment of ministers to run the king’s administration. But some where Manu gives importance more on the brāhmin minister.

For that reason this brāhmin minister get more importance than other ministers (7/58-59).

16. The opinion of Manu and Kauṭilya regarding the description of the place of meeting and its accommodation is same.

Footnotes and references:


Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: op.cit., p. 656.


Ashokanath Shastri, (Ed. & trans.): Manusaṃhitā (7th chap.) pp. 69-70.


ibid., part-III, pp. 203-205.


ibid., part-I, p.9.


ibid., Part-II, p.15.


ibid., part–I, p. 9.


ibid., part–II, p. 15.


ibid., part–I, p. 9.


ibid., part–II, p. 15.


ibid., part–I, p. 9.


ibid., part–II, pp. 15-16.


ibid., part–I, p. 10.


ibid., part–II, p. 16.


ibid., part–I, p. 10.


ibid., part–II, p. 16.


ibid., part-I, p. 10.


ibid., part-II, p. 16.


ibid., part-I, p. 10.


ibid., part-II, p. 17.


ibid., part-I, p. 10.


ibid., part-II, p. 17.


ibid., part-I, p. 11.


ibid., part-II, p. 17.


ibid., part-I, p. 11


ibid., part-II, pp. 17-18.


Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., (7th chap.), p. 68.




ibid., part–1, p. 20.


ibid., part–II, p. 36.


ibid., part–I, p. 11.


ibid., part–II, P. 18.




ibid., part–I, p. 11.


ibid., part–II, pp. 18-19.


ibid., part–II, p. 19 (foot note).


ibid., part–I, p. 11.


ibid., part–II, p. 19.


loc.cit. (foot note).


ibid., part–I, p. 11.


ibid., part–II, p. 19.


loc.cit (foot note).


ibid., part–I. p. 12.


ibid., part–II, pp. 19-20.




ibid., part–I, p. 12.


ibid., part–II, p. 20.


loc.cit. (foot note).


ibid., part–I, p. 12.


ibid., part–II, p. 20.




ibid., part–I, p. 12.


ibid., part–II, pp. 20-21.


ibid., part–II, p. 20.


ibid., part–I, pp. 18-19.


ibid., part–II, pp. 32-33.


ibid., part–II, p. 33 (foot note).


Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 694.


Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., (7th chap.), p. 153.




Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 695.


Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 154.


Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 695.


Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 155.


R.P. Kangle: Op.cit., part-I, p. 19.


ibid., part–II, p. 33.


ibid., part–I, p. 19.


ibid., part–II, p. 33.


ibid., part–II, pp. 33-34.


ibid., part–I, p. 19.


ibid., part–II, p. 34.


loc. cit.


ibid., part–I, p. 20.


ibid., part–II, pp. 34-35.


T.G. Shastri, Ed.: Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, part-I, p. 78.


R.P. Kangle: Op. cit., part-I, p.20.


ibid., part–II, p.35.


ibid., part–I, p.20.


ibid., part–II, p. 35.


ibid., part–I, p. 20.


ibid., part–II, pp. 35-36.


Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit. , p. 711.


Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 179.


Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 712.


Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., pp. 179-180.


R.P.Kangle: Op. cit., part-I, pp. 20-21.


ibid., part-II, p. 36.

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: