The English Translation of the Kautiliya

Summary

Narendra Nath Law’s article reviews the third edition of Dr. R. Shamasastry’s English translation of Kautilya’s Arthashastra and highlights errors that could mislead readers. Shamasastry’s translation opened the Arthashastra to a broad audience and responded to the demand for an accessible version of this complex text. However, Law argues that the translation often renders technical terms inadequately and occasionally misinterprets key verses. He critiques Shamasastry’s use of the term “mediatory” for the “Madhyama” sovereign, pointing out that the Madhyama is actually a neighbouring king of moderate strength who can subdue or assist other kings depending on alliances; calling him a mediator gives a misleading impression. Law also disputes the translation of terms related to diplomatic alliances and the relationships among the “ari” (enemy), “vijigīṣu” (would‑be conqueror) and “madhyama,” noting that Shamasastry sometimes confuses their roles. He criticises the rendering of verses describing the “friend” (mitra) and “enemy” (ari) dynamic, arguing that the translation misses nuances about when a friend helps a king or harms him. Law points out that Shamasastry’s translation of the Arthashastra’s book on espionage mistranslates “niśācāram,” misinterpreting spies who operate at night as “nocturnal creatures” rather than skilled agents. Overall, Law stresses that while the translation makes the text widely available, errors in rendering technical terminology can lead to faulty interpretations of ancient Indian political theory. He urges scholars and readers not to rely solely on the translation but to consult the Sanskrit text and existing commentaries. The article concludes by expressing hope that future revisions will correct these inaccuracies and maintain the Arthashastra’s integrity for future students.