Kautilya — A Follower of Jainism

Summary

This article examines the evidence for viewing Kautilya, better known as Chanakya, as a follower of Jainism. Kautilya, prime minister to Chandragupta Maurya and author of the Arthashastrahttps://www.worldhistory.org/Kautilya/#:~:text=Chanakya%20%28l.%20c.%20350,on%20how%20to%20rule%20effectively, is generally remembered as a pragmatist. The article draws on Jain canonical and commentarial sources to argue that he was born into a Jain Brahmin family and maintained close ties with Jain monks. The Avasyakacurni relates that he was the son of a Jain priest named Canaka and studied at Takshashila under Jain teachers. Jain texts also say he befriended the monk Bhadrabahu and accompanied a monastic migration to the south during a famine. It was under his influence, the article contends, that Chandragupta embraced Jainism and abdicated the throne to undertake Sallekhana. Kautilya himself is said to have observed monastic vows, earning the epithet “pravacanopahasabhīru,” one who is afraid to interrupt religious discourses. The author strengthens this argument by citing later Jain works such as the Parishishtaparvan, which call Kautilya a sanghopasaka (patron of the monastic community) and describe him as a disciple of the Jain guru Sukalacharya. In these accounts he performed acts of devotion and ultimately took the vow of sallekhana at the end of his life. Such epithets suggest that Jain tradition remembered him as an exemplary layman committed to the monastic order. The article further argues that traces of Kautilya’s Jain leanings survive in the Arthashastra. For instance, the treatise prohibits animal slaughter during the four months of the rainy season and advises the king to protect ascetics from harm – recommendations consonant with the Jain practice of cāturmāsya and the principle of ahimsa. The author compares these passages with similar injunctions in Jain scriptures and suggests that Kautilya sought to harmonise statecraft with ethical constraints. He also notes that early Buddhist and Brahmanical texts never portray Kautilya as a strictly orthodox Brahmin; rather, they depict him as an enigmatic outsider. While acknowledging that some elements of the story are legendary, the article insists that the cumulative evidence from Jain narrative literature, inscriptions and the Arthashastra itself makes a compelling case for Kautilya’s Jain affiliation. By reinterpreting a canonical figure of Indian political history through the lens of Jain sources, the article challenges simplistic characterisations of ancient thinkers and highlights the pluralistic environment of the Mauryan court. In doing so it encourages historians to examine how sectarian traditions preserve alternative perspectives on well‑known figures and to integrate those voices into broader narratives of Indian history.