The Kautiliya Arthasastra on Forms of Government
By Harit Krishna Deb
Summary
Analysing Book VI, Chapter 2 of Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the article discusses forms of government under the topic of vyasanacinta, the examination of calamities affecting rulers and states. Kautilya defines calamities in terms of destiny (daiva), human effort (manusha), right policy (naya), wrong policy (anaya) and removal (apanaya). Earlier teachers described composite governments where a weak high‑born king shared power with a strong low‑born king, prioritising strength over lineage. Kautilya, however, argues that high birth matters more: people spontaneously submit to a high‑born king even if weak and resist a low‑born strong king. This preference aligns with Mauryan ideology and suggests Kautilya’s master hailed from a noble line that displaced low‑born monarchs. The article examines categories like dvairajya (dual kingship), ekarajya (sole rule) and gana (oligarchy), exploring their merits and dangers. It concludes that the Arthashastra reflects both pragmatic considerations and ideological bias toward hereditary monarchy.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates how Kautilya integrates ethical and pragmatic considerations in his analysis of political forms. His discussion of dvairajya shows awareness of mixed governments but ultimately endorses high‑born monarchs, reflecting the ideological context of the Mauryan court. By contrasting his views with those of earlier teachers who prioritised strength over lineage, the article illustrates the Arthashastra’s role as both a treatise on statecraft and an instrument of royal legitimation. Understanding these debates enriches our perception of early Indian political theory.