To many, Kautilya comes across as amoral because of his relentless focus on realism.

Worse
still, as a consequentialist—someone who believes that the ends justify the means—some of his
prescriptions seem downright immoral, especially to those who privilege the means over the
ends. Yet, Kautilya was a true progressive in that he wanted to make a better society. He did not
eschew dharma:

“Sukhasya Mulam Dharmah

Dharmasya Mulam Arthah”

Rather he believed that happiness was rooted in dharmic behaviour and that dharma could
flourish only in a prosperous society. With his moral compass firmly in place, he went about
prescribing policies for promoting prosperity without ritual genuflections to moral sentiments in
every other page.

Kautilya’s View of Social Contract

“People suffering from anarchy first elected Manu to be their king and allotted one-sixth of the
grains grown and one-tenth of merchandise as sovereign dues. Fed by his payment, kings took
upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of their subjects.”
Kautilya

Here is a clear statement of the origins of monarchy—no divine sanction, just people coming
together and creating an arrangement that collectively enhanced safety and security. Kautilya
was not the originator of this social contract notion of kingship, but he develops it further. A king
forgets the implicit social contract that puts himself in peril. Kautilya says, “When a people are
impoverished, they become greedy; when they are greedy, they become disaffected; when
disaffected, they either go over to the enemy or kill their rulers themselves.” It is incumbent upon
the king to deliver on his side of the deal, not just from a higher moral sense but also from self-
interest. Indeed, Kautilya states that impoverishment and disaffection are engendered when the
king “causes harm by unrighteous practices, ...does not carry out his part of what is agreed
upon; and by his indolence and negligence destroys the welfare of his people.”

Kautilya is famous for recommending the extensive use of a surveillance state to protect the
sovereign and nip coups and revolts in the bud. However, he is careful to distinguish between
threats arising from conspiracies among the elite and a revolt brewing among the people because
they are disaffected. In the latter case, he recommends, “he shall immediately take remedial
measures.” He also says, “If the rebellion is due to the king’s own faults, he shall correct them.”
His harsh measures are reserved for dealing with rebellions by opportunistic members of the
elite. He also distinguishes between upright and villainous conspirators. Kautilya wants the king
to win over the former because, “upright men conspire for the sake of others similarly placed.”
Thus, he recommends, “The king shall make a treaty with an upright man [and keep it]. With a
villain, a treaty shall be made with a view to outmaneuvering him.”

Kautilya makes it clear that the true source of a king’s strength is the prosperity and affection of
his subjects. A king “not being rooted among his subjects becomes easy to uproot.” He also
states, “When a just king is attacked, even if he suffers from serious calamity, his subjects will
help him.” On the other hand, “A king… without support… is deserted by his subjects” when
attacked.

In this light, let us consider Kautilya’s famous injunction,

Prajasukhe sukham rajnah, Prajanam ca hite hitam

Natmapriyam hitam rajanah, Prajanam tu priyam hitam

(In the happiness of his subjects lies the king’s happiness;

in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him

but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects.)

It cannot be seen a mere moral exhortation but one rooted in enlightened self-interest and
reciprocity.