Congratulations, you’ve become king of a small ancient Indian state. Your first question: how to choose ministers? This is an important enough question that Kauṭilya does a literature review: he summarizes the opinion of various authorities before giving his own. You should not pick your classmates or family retainers (they won’t respect you as a king), nor sycophants (they are devoted by not intelligent), nor “new persons” (who are inexperienced). You should choose men of “high family and possessed of wisdom… ministerial appointments shall purely depend on qualifications.” This sounds hard to disagree with, but it’s worth pointing out that most premodern states were aristocratic and not meritocratic. (And this was long before China’s examination system developed.)
Early governments are often pictured with a small staff. E.g. I was just reading in Mary Beard that Pliny the Younger was appointed governor of a fairly large province and had precisely two officeholders beneath him. Beyond that, he had to use his own servants, co-opt native (non-Roman) authorities, or use the legions. Chinese magistrates might govern a million citizens with no staff paid by the central government. But the Arthaśāstra describes what sounds like a pretty large and thorough bureaucracy. Here’s the main offices described:
- Chamberlain (responsible for treasury and storehouses)
- Collector general (of taxes)
- Superintendent of accounts
- … of the treasury
- … of (manufacturing) metals
- … of the mint
- … of gold
- … of the storehouse
- … of commerce
- … of forest produce
- … of the armoury
- … of weights and measures
- … of tolls
- … of weaving
- … of agriculture
- … of liquor
- … of the slaughterhouse
- … of prostitutes
- … of cows
- … of horses
- … of elephants
- … of chariots
- … of passports
He also mentions the chief priest, the officer in charge of the harem, the magistrate, the king’s council, and governors of cities, forts, boundaries, and villages.
Kauṭilya writes as if the king could regulate and manage everything. There’s no bright line between public and private. It’s clear there was private activity, but the state also carried on a lot of economic activity on its own. The king also wanted his tax share of everything. There is even a rule that the state should supply dice to gamblers.
A warning on secrecy: counsels have been divulged by parrots, mynah birds, and dogs. (Was this warning literal? But then we say “The walls have ears.”)
The vices of a king are hunting, gambling, women, and drinking. Of these, Kauṭilya concludes that drinking and gambling are the worst. Drinking causes loss of money, corpselike appearance, loss of the Vedas, pain, loss of friends, and addiction to music. For Kauṭilya that’s pretty harsh.
Using confederates, princes should be terrified into avoiding all four. This can be done by drugging his liquor, defrauding him at gambling, accosting his hunting party in the guise of bandits, and showing him “impure women”.
A forest for the king may be set up with wild animals whose claws and teeth have been removed. (This is presumably for relaxation; other forests could be set up for hunting.)
Although there is much advice about how to serve the king, the life of a courtier is described as “living in fire.”
Kings should follow their subjects in dress, customs, language, and religion. (Again, Kauṭilya wrote in a period when kings were often foreign and/or non-Hindu, so this may be a complaint against the times.)
There are suggestions on how a minister can seize power. However, Kauṭilya advises against this; rather, a young prince should be set up as a puppet.
If Kauṭilya has one word for the king, that word is spies. Spies should check on government officials, attempt to corrupt them (so you learn which are corruptible), listen for dissidents, eliminate the seditious. They spread out into neighboring countries to bring information and sow division. Good covers for spies include religious disciple, ascetic, householder, merchant, prostitute, and mendicant woman. Poisoners and assassins are also needed.
If three different spies produce the same story, it can be believed. If they frequently differ, they are probably making things up and should be dismissed.
Suspicious places to check on: vintners; sellers of cooked rice and meat; gambling houses; houses of heretics. Merchants and physicians are expected to report suspicious clients.
Entrapment is recommended. One neat idea: pretend to have supernatural powers, such as great speed, invisibility, causing sleep, opening locked doors. See who signs up for lessons. (You can use confederates to pretend to sleep in order to demonstrate your powers.) Arrest those who then attempt to commit crimes.
A spy can incite the brother of a seditious person to kill him. Then you kill the brother for fratricide.
You can set up traps in a temple, e.g. a wall that falls on your enemy as he enters.
A spy can pretend to be a long-lived ascetic and make friends with an enemy king. The spy claims that he takes a new body every hundred years, and invites the enemy to see the rite. If he shows up, he can be killed.
Spies can pretend to be gods and converse with the king, so the people think the king regularly has divine visitors.
Though kings were expected to rule with wisdom, they were also expected to conquer. “Whoever is superior in power shall wage war.”
It’s presumed that all the king’s neighbors are enemies. But by the same token, the king in back of your enemy might be your friend. The rules for dealing with enemies, friends, and neutrals are pretty complex, and frequently cynical. (If you need to double-cross your enemy, he tells you how to do it.)
Fighting to the end is not wise; better to surrender. Typically a surrendered king was allowed to administer his own territory.
If you have to give children as hostages, it’s best to give princesses, because they “cause troubles” for the court that receives them. Unfortunately he doesn’t explain what troubles!
Is it better to attack a strong but wicked king, or a weak but righteous one? The wicked king, because his own subjects will refuse to support him.
Is it better to have a small army of bold men, or a large army of effete men? The latter: there is always work for the weaklings, and numbers terrify the enemy. Besides, you can train the effete men to be more spirited.
You could use an “army of traitors” to look weak and invite attack.
A look-alike for the king should supervise the arrangement of troops.
An untrained army can march one yojana a day (5.5 miles)— the best armies could do twice that. (Other sources on ancient warfare suggests 20 miles a day… but at this period north India still had lots of forest, so Kauṭilya probably knows what he’s talking about.)
Ways to cross a river: a line of elephants; planks spread over pillars; bridges and boats; masses of bamboo; baskets covered with skins.
You shouldn’t harass a defeat army, because it will become reckless and dangerous.
Elephants can be used not only to charge the enemy, but to break into forts, to clear the path, to protect your flank, to ford streams, to quench fires, to carry the treasury. However, elephants are only good when there’s plenty of water: in dry hot country they become obstinate, or catch leprosy.
The four branches of the army are infantry, elephants, horses, and chariots. However, it’s clear that the number of chariots is small: a few dozen make up the chariot arm.
Three men can oppose a horse; fifteen are needed to oppose a chariot or an elephant.