Date of Kautilya

The date of Arthashastra is a highly debated issue as it remains unsettled whether Chanakya and Kautilya alias Vishnugupta were the same personalities or not. I hold that the Chanakya and Kautilya are different personalities belonging to different times and that the author of Arthashastra, Kautilya, belongs to the period between the third to fourth century A.D. Without going into the varied opinions of the scholars, I prefer the internal proofs to determine the date that Arthashastra has left for us.

1     We have to differentiate in the purpose of writing of Manu and Kautilya. Kautilya is writing for the kings who are meant to govern all the societies situated in his kingdom while Manu is formulating the code to regulate his Vedic society. Manu’s role is far more limited than that of Kautilya. Hence both cannot be compared in the matter of laws and instructions, barring a few instances where Kautilya has directly borrowed from Manu. It is an established fact that Manusmriti’s final edition was compiled in 2^nd century A.D. though its codification continued for several centuries before that and the different layers and contradicting commands of different times are visible in the present edition. It is clear from internal evidence that Arthashastra is a work that was written/compiled after Manusmriti was finalized. 

2  For example, internal evidence from Arthashastra clearly suggests that it is certainly the work of a later date than of Manu. In chapter 1.3, Kautilya, contrary to Manu, clearly has mixed the duties of the Vaishyas and Shudras which only can be a later development in the Vedic religion. Also, contrary to Manu, he envelopes Shudras in the Aryan fold which was not the case till at the least second century A.D. Maharashtri Prakrit work  "Angavijja” belonging to that time clearly separates the religion of the Aryas and Shudras. Manu also treats both classes separately. This does mean the term Arya, used for the Vedic religion, had taken different connotations during Kautilya's times. It now had to come in use to denote the overall society. Kshatriya from the Vedic fold must have been reduced in number as Kautilya prefers Shudra or Vaishya army over the small Kshatriya army. (9.2.21-24) Also, a fact to be noted is that like Kshatriyas Vaishyas also had lost importance in the Vedic religion as the mention of Vaishya varna is rare in the Arthashastra. Maybe the Vaishya had abandoned the Vedic fold to join the religion of the Shudras. Whatever the case might be, the social structure of the Vedic religion seems drastically changing in Kautilya's time.  

3.     Kautilya describes the temples of the family deity of the king along with City-guardian deities. (2.4.17) He also describes the temples of different deities spread over the city (2.4.18). As we know, the temples or idolatry were not part of the Vedic religion.  The concept of family deity is clearly a Hindu (or Shudra) custom. The beginning chapters of the Arthashastra make it clear that besides Anvikshiki, he holds three Vedas with high esteem declaring his mixed belief. Anvikshiki does not belong to the Vedic tradition. Until the first century A.D., there is no proof to show that the Vedics had accepted idolatry. Then how Vedics could possibly have accepted the worship of Hindu deities as early as in the 4^th century B.C., if Chanakya and Kautilya were the same personalities? It is not a fact. Making idols of Vedic deities too is a far later incidence that did not survive for a long time. Arthashastra mentions temples of Hindu and Vedic deities that clearly reject the assumption that Chanakya and Kautilya are the same person. However, In the Gupta era, as Ghurye has produced evidence, it seems the inflow of converts in the Vedic religion was quite high which corrupted the Vedic religion itself by bringing in idolatry and tantras. Manu does not acknowledge idolatry at all and condemns the tantras. This development in the Vedic religion places Kautilya in far later times.

4.     Also, temples seem to be very rich in the time of the Kautilya. He undermines guilds and proposes state-owned enterprises. There are temples of the goddesses as well. (4.13.41) There also are temples of Srotriya Brahmins, which also is strange as especially Srotriya Brahmins were prohibited from any kind of idol worship. They were considered to be experts in Vedas and in conducting fire sacrifices. Kautilya differentiates Sraut and other Brahmins while positioning the Sraut Brahmins on the top. The period of this division in the Vedic religion also indicates the late origin of Arthashastra. 

5.     In Buddhist and Jainist literature also we find a major mention of Indra along with other Vedic deities. Later on, Indra was degraded and Vishnu was elevated to the position of a chief deity in Vedicism. The process of degradation was complete when he was finally made the guardian deity of a direction. This development could have gradually begun only after the second century B.C. and by the time of Kautilya, it must have become a practice to have his temples built as a guardian deity. Indra, Brahma, Yama, and Senapati (Kumar Kartikeya) had become just guardians of four quarters. According to Arthashastra, the chief deities worshipped were Shiva, Vaishravana (Kuber), Madira (Durga), all non-Vedic gods, along with Vedic gods like Aparajita, Sri, Ashvins, etc. (2.4.17) Temples of the Vedic gods could have been an imitation of the Hindu temples which could have taken place only after first century A.D. as Angavijja mentions these Vedic deities but not their temples.
 
 Because the concept of public temples emerged in Hindus only after the fourth century B.C. and spread in the later course of time. The first example of the temple we find on an Oudumbara coin belonging to the first century B.C. 



The image of Shiva temple, having simple architecture is inscribed on the coin. 

Laxmi (Sri) worship came to prominence only in the Gupta era. In earlier inscriptions or scriptures we do not find mention of her worship in idol form. Only on the Gupta coins, we do find the prominent depiction of the Laxmi image. (Bharatiya Sanskriti Kosh, ed. Pt. Mahadev Shastri Joshi, Bharatiya sanskritiKosh Mandal, 2000, Vol. 8, p. 332)

6.     Kautilya is referring to Kumar Kartikeya as Senapati, which also indicates towards the late date of Arthashastra as from Satvahanas (Naneghat inscription, 1st century B.C.) to Kaniska  (Rabtak inscription, 1st century A.D.) has saluted Kumar Kartikeya along with Shiva and Uma as a chief deity. Angavijja of the first century A.D. also considers Kumara to be a major deity and not as a minor guardian deity as Arthashastra depicts and hence this also appears to be a late development. Arthashasta cannot be placed earlier than the third century A.D. because of these reasons.

7.     The imagery on the coins of all the Janpadas, dating from the sixth century B.C. till the second century A.D. exhibits tantric symbolism and Shiva/Uma images prominently. There also are Buddhist and Jain iconology inscribed on the coins but there is no presence of Vedic symbolism on any coin, suggesting low profile or insignificant existence of the Vedic religion. Also, we do not find even a specimen of the existence of the Vedic or Sanskrit language in any legend inscribed on the coins or inscriptions. The descriptions of the Sraut fire sacrifices, which were conducted by Satvahana and the Shungas, also are clearly in Prakrit. We easily can track how from the Prakrit the Sanskrit language gradually evolved from the second century B.C. till the second century A.D. Sanskrit language only reached perfection only in the middle of the third century A.D. which is the most probable date of Panini. (Bhacheche Mul, Sanjay Sonawani, Chaprak Prakashan, 2016) 

8.     Kautilya provides some information on various kingdoms like Kamboj, Sindhu etc., and republics like Vajji, Kuru-Panchal, etc. Chandragupta Maurya had subjugated these kingdoms and Republics of the northwest and the east was under his control. On the contrary, Kautilya mentions these republics and kingdoms as having an independent existence, which does also not make him contemporary to Mauryas. Had he been contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya, he wouldn't have made this grave mistake. This only does mean Chanakya and Kautilya are distinct personalities.

Above are a few observations that indicate Kautilya and Chanakya are different personalities belonging to different times. The socio-religious conditions appearing in the Arthashastra also are far different than those of the Mauryan period. Kautilya gives equal importance to the study of the Vedas and Anvikshiki (Sankhya, Yoga, and Lokayata), the latter is clearly a non-Vedic tradition, which was appropriated by the Vedics during the Gupta era.

However, from Arthashastra also is clear that Kautilya is hypothesizing an ideal State while using all the possible existing material available to him from the past and his observations of his contemporary society to set a theoretical manual. It doesn’t appear that the author of the Arthashastra was practically experienced in the administrative affairs of any state.

Was he part of the Gupta Empire? This also is unlikely as the concept of the empire does not appear in Arthashastra. Kautilya’s date possibly could be between the third and fourth century when Srigupta (founder of the Gupta dynasty) had established his small independent kingdom, succeeded by Ghatotkacha (Traditional Asura name) and before the rise of Chandragupta (1^st) who expanded the borders of a tiny kingdom. Arthashastra could have been somewhat partially useful to Chandragupta (1), but there is no direct evidence.

Kautilya was writing about a hypothetical state where people were expected to live harmoniously despite their religious differences. The practical implementation of his treaty could have been in parts or none. He seems to have been aware of the surrounding social realities where idolatrous Hindus were a dominant society and the fact that the Vedic religion was completely penetrated by the non-Vedic converted people. The Vedic religion got corrupted because of the converts to Hindu practices such as Idol worship that divided Vedic society into Smart and Sraut sects. The division that he makes of the Brahmins in Srotriya and the other Brahmins (those were termed as Smarta Brahmins in Adi Shankaracharya’s time.) category also suggests this development took place because of the converts. 

As scholars are aware, Chandragupta Maurya had a humble origin. If “Mudrarakshasa” is to be believed, Chandragupta had “Vrushala” (Non-Aryan) origin. The other myths that are associated with the origin of Chandragupta confuse the issue more. In any case, he was not Vedic, or else those who could preserve the memory of Chanakya being a deemed Brahmin, couldn’t possibly have forgotten the origin of mighty Chandragupta Maurya. And Shudra (Hindu) Chandragupta accepting Vedic Guru is most unlikely. The origins of Chanakya also are wrapped in obscurity and the probability is he also was Hindu and not Vedic Brahmin as the masses believe today.

Gupta's origin also has been wrapped in obscurity. They could not be the Vaishyas as some scholars like A. S. Altekar believe. If the name ending with Gupta is prescribed for the Vaishya varna, then the name Vishnugupta (another name of Kautilya) should also belong to the Vaishya community and not Brahmin. Interestingly Kautilya treats Vaishya and Shudra equivalents and prefers the army of these people.  Hence in all probabilities, the origin of the Guptas could have been Hindu and not Vedic. Let us look at the fact that the Satvahanas also belonged to the Shudra, non-Vedic, community. However, this is against the teaching and discriminatory ideas of Manusmriti. Like a secular scholar, Kautilya has given equal importance to Vedic and Hindu doctrine.