Short notes on the Date and Authorship Controversy of Arthashastra

The Arthashastra was somehow completely lost, and it was only in the early 20th century that a copy was discovered by Pandit R. Shamshastry (who later translated the text into English) in South India.

The contents of this newly discovered text agree fairly well with the view that was formed about its scope and nature in subsequent literature.

Also, many passages of the text describe it as the work of Kautilya who dethroned the Nandas, thus clearly establishing his identity with the prime minister of Chandragupta.

However, the date of origin of the Arthashastra remains problematic, with suggested dates ranging from the 4th century bc to the 3rd century ad.

Some authorities contend that the text, as it is, was not the work of a single individual, but of a school of politics, and that it could not be composed in the third century bc, but probably received its present form three or four centuries later.

Romila Thapar’s book Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas has put forward many arguments for and against the early compilation and authorship of the Arthashastra.

Krishna Rao is of the opinion that the Arlhashastra belongs to the Mauryan period. His opinion is based on two factors: (i) connection between Asokan policy and the Arthashastra, and (ii) mentioning of Kautilya by Asvaghosha.

However, according to Romila Thapar, the second argument is weak since Asvaghosha is generally placed not later than second century ad.

The two main contestants who have devoted much time and energy to this discussion are J. Jolly and K.P. Juyaswal.

Jolly maintained that text be­longed to the third century ad, while according to Jayaswal, maintains that Kautilya was the author of the Arthashastra and the text dates to the fourth century bc.

But Jayaswal failed to explain the use of the term cinapatta, Chinese silk, in Arthashastra. Since Chinese silk via eastern India began to be imported in India at a later date, the reference to cinapatta indicates the late date of the text itself.

However, there is evidence to prove that silk was used in Bacteria, which was imported from India in the second century bc.

According to D.R. Bhandarkar, the Arthashastra, originally written in verse, was reduced to sutra form in 400 ad. Bhandarkar quotes Dandin, who refers to the text as written in metrical form, and Bhavabhuti, who quotes it in the form of the sutras.

According to Romila Thapar, it is not possible to state categori­cally which form the earliest version of the Arthashastra took, since early texts are known to exist both in verse form and in sutras.

Winternitz, like Jolly, doubts the authorship of Kautilya, largely on the question of the seven-fold classification of the sovereignty of the state. Accord­ing to him, the classification is too pedantic for a practicing politician to formulate.

N.N. Law, how­ever, argues that this classification was necessary to the theory of mandala, otherwise it would not have been possible for a king to determine the relative power of his neighbour.

H.C. Raychaudhari does not accept the Mauryan period as the date of the Arthashastra. The language of this text is Sanskrit, but the Mauryans used Prakrit: This argument is based on the fact that Asoka used Prakrit for his inscription.

However, the use of Prakrit in the inscriptions, meant for common people, does not mean that the use of Sanskrit in the educated sections of the Mauryan society was prevented.

Another point raised by Raychaudhari is that Kautilya was against the use of wood for buildings and preferred the use of bricks, but Arian states that cities near rivers or seas were built of wood.

It shows, according to Raychaudhari, that the Arthashastra does not belong to the Mauryan period. This argument can be contested on the ground that Kautilya may have advised against the use of wood but his advice on this matter tended to be disre­garded.

However, Arian adds that wood was used only in areas where brick would not be able to withstand the destruction of rain and flood. Raychaudhari’s next argument is that there is no reference in the Arthashastra to the royal titles used by the Mauryas.

But this is so because there was no set formula for royal titles at this time. Raychaudhari’s final argument pertains to geographi­cal knowledge provided by the Arthashastra.

The inclusion of the terms Parasmudra, Cinabhumi (Chinabhumi) and Kambu in the text suggests a later date. This argument is not sufficient evidence for giving the work a late date.

Knowledge of China was in existence at a fairly early period. Further, there may have been interpolations at various stages.

G.H. Ojha has suggested that the name Vishnugupta for Kautilya was a later fabrication. Much of the earlier texts such as the Puranas and the Mahavamsa refer to him as Kautilya or Chanakya.

Kalyanov states that the present version of the Arthashastra is a work of the third century ad, because the means of production which it discusses, the social system and economic and political insti­tutions are all more advances than those described by Megasthenes. So it is difficult to say that the main body of the text dates to the Mauryan period.

Romila Thapar has concluded the date and authorship controversy relating to the Arthashastra in the following manner: The Arthashastra was originally written by Kautilya, also known as Chanakya; at the end of the fourth century bc.

It was edited and commented upon by various later writers, until in about the third or fourth century ad Vishnugupta worked over the entire text, with whatever interpo­lations had occurred by then. The text as it is known to us today is in this later form of Vishnugupta’s.