CHANAKYA AND

CHANDRAGUPTA

WHO WAS THE REAL RULER?

Ancient India Assignment
Mam Kiran Siddiqui

Made By:
Arwa Juzar
B0860006
B.S Third Year
General History
 Contents

Introduction
Chandragupta Maurya
Chanakya
The Real Ruler
Conclusion

Endnotes
Bibliography
 Introduction
“Counselors (Ministers) are those who see the true implications what ought to be done and what ought
not to do.” So says Chanakya in his Chankyasutras which us that it is ministers not rulers that really know
how to rule a state. It certainly seems true of the said author.
Chanakya, Kautilya or Vishnugupta are three names for the same person who was the minister of
Chandragupta Maurya, the king that established the earliest empire in India reputedly due to his minister. He
was a Brahman, a sage statesman, a cunning diplomat and a brilliant political strategist. Chanakya is the
author of the earliest book on statesmanship the Arthashastra or “Treatise on Polity” that trumps
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” by centuries.
India in the 3rd Century B.C was being ruled by the Nanda dynasty in Magadha when the whirlwind of
Macedon, Alexander came to invade these lands. The Nanda king was Agrammes or Dhana Nanda who was
described as being worthless, a tyrant and despised by his people.
India has several times been invaded by foreign armies on account of the existence of constant
friction between her different states and races. The consolidation of the whole of Northern India
under one suzerain authority led to internal peace and prosperity and freedom from external raids.
The process of consolidation had commenced with the growth of the power of Magadha. Alexander
heard of the powerful Gangaridae in the east, that is, of the powerful kingdom in the Ganges Valley,
and his retreat was due partly to the dread of these people. (Nathball, 1921, p.111)
Alexander conquered the North-Western territories and established his garrisons there and though he did
not leave much of an impression it was the political gap left by him that was to provide an opportunity
He defeated the Nanda king and with the support of the locals drove the Greeks out and established a
strong government and brought all the territories under a unified rule. But tradition attributes this victory to
Chanakya and gives him credit for placing Chandragupta on the throne of Magadha. Chanakya is said to
have sworn revenge against the Nanda king due to an insult given to him and it is solely this that led him to
Chandragupta as a means to his own end.
How much of this story is true is a fact still disputed by many writers and many different sources. In the
following pages first by reconstructing the achievements of Chandragupta, and then looking at Chanakya,
and by taking different viewpoints from a variety of sources we try to interpret just how much this is true.
The main source is the play Mudrarakshas by Vishakhadatta which is about the only original source for
the study of this period which reduces Chandragupta to a mere weakling. There is also the Arthashastra, the
Puranas, the Greek writers and others all of whom hold different views. It is only through research and
interpretation that a conclusion can be reached.
 Chandragupta Maurya
To understand the relationship between Chanakya and Chandragupta a look at both their origins and
personalities and their achievements is vital as only then can a conclusion be reached to the question that
who was the real ruler.
Chandragupta Maurya was one the greatest kings of the Maurya dynasty who united all of India into an
empire from the small Magadhan kingdoms and states and defeated the last Nanda king. Chandragupta had
incurred the displeasure of Nanda, whom he had served in the office of senapati, or Commander-in-Chief
(Rapson, 1922, p.470) which seems most plausible rather than rendering him as a royal prince.
Chandragupta Maurya’s birth is not known to us and it is very much disputed but is generally agreed
upon as being born in the middle of the fourth century B.C. The Mudrarakshasa says that he was a prince of
the Nanda dynasty borne by the queen consort of Moriyanagara. “According to Jain tradition recorded in the
Parisishtaparvan, however Chandragupta was born of the daughter of a peacock-tamer who lived in an
obscure village.”(Sastri, 1967, p.143) This point of view is also agreed upon by other writers who say that
this led to the dynasty being called Maurya as peacocks in Pali are called Moriyas. It is also said that
Chanakya visited the mother of Chandragupta and in exchange for relieving her restlessness he would take
the child when it was mature and raise it.i However most of these are suppositions and here our main
concern is that Chanakya may have known Chandragupta for a long time and was merely waiting for a
protégé that he could put up against the Nandas.
Chandragupta also met Alexander when he came to invade India which is reported by Justin and
Plutarch that a youth called Sandrocottus met Alexander and advised him to attack the weak Nanda
kingdom in a speech which offended Alexander who ordered him to be put to death. He escaped and then
resolved to expel all the Greek garrisons from India. The narrative of Justin gives the impression that after
his departure from Alexander’s camp Chandragupta retired to a forest and gathered armed men to support
him in removing the existing government. (Sastri, 1967, p.144)
Chandragupta overthrew the foreign rule as well as the internal rule of king Nanda. He gathered a group
of people and started advancing rapidly from the frontiers to the capital without stopping to establish some
sort of rule. This initial mistake of his is recorded in the Mahavamsa as well as Jain and Buddhist sources
which say that it led to his army being surrounded and destroyed easily. “The Milindapanha gives an
exaggerated account of the slaughter attending the destruction of the army of Magadha.” (Munshi, p.59)
Chandragupta however learned easily and occupied the capital Pataliputra where he started establishing his
rule in the Ganges valley and the north-western principalities of the Greeks.
Chandragupta after moving onwards in hopes of bringing the whole of India under his rule encountered
the successor of Alexander- Seleucus Nicator in the Indus valley. Seleucus had come to India in the hope of
recovering his master’s possessions but unlike Alexander he faced a united and stronger force. A battle
ensued in which Chandragupta came out the winner and Seleucus was forced to make peace in which he
received five hundred elephants in exchange for Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia and Paropanisadae. ii
Seleucus sent an ambassador Megasthenes to the court of Chandragupta who lived at Pataliputra and
wrote a detailed account of India which does not survive except in accounts of Strabo, Pliny and other
Greek and Latin writers.
Chandragupta now devoted himself to the consolidation of his empire and a highly systemized
administration was set up which was the first of its kind in India. He divided his vast empire into different
provinces each with its own setup which enabled great efficiency. The court and the people were all
prosperous which led to the stability of the empire.
According to Jain traditions Chandragupta abdicated the throne after a period of famine and fasted to
death in the manner of Jain saints at the great Jain temple and monastery of Sravana Belgola, in modern
Mysore. (Basham, 1954, p.53)
 Chanakya
Chanakya was a Brahman who was the minister of Chandragupta Maurya who was a powerful and
vibrant personality which was multifaceted. A powerful minister, mysterious strategist, a diligent planner,
an able executive and an honest advisor.
The Mudrarakshasa of Vishakhadatta gives the origination of Chanakya and the meeting of both of
them in great detail and since this is an almost contemporary account it is counted above others.

Most of the details of the life of Kautilya are uncertain and shrouded in myth and legend. Ancient Indian
tradition describes him as a native of Taxila (near Peshawar in modern Pakistan) who had journeyed to
Pataliputra (Patna), capital of the Nanda Empire in search of recognition of his learning. There he was
insulted by Dhana Nanda, last of the Nanda rulers, and the irascible Brahmin swore vengeance on the house
of the Nandas. Pursued by Nanda soldiers, Kautilya escaped into the forests, where he met the young
Chandragupta Maurya. Kautilya took Chandragupta to Taxila. This was the time when Alexander's legions
were invading northwestern India. Alexander retreated from the Punjab in 325 B.C., and soon thereafter
Chandragupta worked his dynastic revolution, killing Dhana Nanda and becoming the ruler of India. Indian
tradition asserts that Kautilya had masterminded this revolution and continued as Chandragupta's counselor.
Other sources say different things about the origination of Chanakyaiii but all agree that he met
Chandragupta at some point and instigated him against the Nandas.
Megasthenes however does not mention Chanakya in his available accounts which might be due to some
sort of rivalry between the two or the fact that Chanakya was not present at the court at that time. The
Mudrarakshasa also hints that Chanakya after the fulfillment of his revenge retired to the forest in tradition
of Brahman hermitage. However in other places we find evidences that he continued on upto the rule of
Bindusara but it is not definite.
The Arthshastra one of the greatest political works in this world that is the precursor of Machaevelli’s
Prince and other treatises on diplomacy and state-craft is credited to Chanakya.iv It consists of fifteen books
each outlining each aspect of state life including the daily routine of a king. It is no doubt one the greatest
treatises of the ancient period.
 The Real Authority?
To find out who was really ruling we begin from the start when the Nandas were overthrown. Mostly it is
said that it was Chanakya who was responsible for the defeat of Dhana Nanda and the installation of the
Maurya’s. The Puranas state that Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, will anoint Chandragupta as king of the
realm and the up rooter of the Nanda dynasty (Thapar, 1963, p.12-13). In the accounts of Justin, Ceylon
chroniclers and Kamandaka the credit is given to an all powerful chancellor the Brahman Chanakya. The
whole play Mudrarakshasa is based on this premise which leads to him defeating all rivals to put
Chandragupta on the throne. It says that he let down his hair only to put it up when he fulfilled his revenge.v
In this play Chanakya is the main actor with Chandragupta being a mere pupil and servant

(Mudrarakshasa)

On the other hand the Mahavamsa and Jain traditions describe the efforts of Chandragupta to conquer
India and great details saying that he directly invaded the heart of the country and did not start from the edges
which caused him to suffer a setback and it was in these efforts that he was aided by Chanakya. Ultimately the
Nanda king was defeated.
Since the Mudrarakshasa is a main source the events in it are described separately and in detail as it gives
the whole and sundry credit to the minister. The play begins with the defeat of the Nanda king and
Chandragupta on the throne of Pataliputra and the murder of Chandragupta’s chief ally Parvataka by a poison
maid in the employ of Chanakya. The blame of this is put on the shoulders of Rakshasa, the faithful minister
of the Nanda kings. Chanakya greatly admires him as according to him men serve kings during their lifetime
for either love or greed but admirable is one who serves a king even after his death and only for the purpose of
having justice done. Rakashasa allies with Malayaketu, son of the slain Parvataka along with other Mleccha
chieftains against Chandragupta to see the throne rightfully restored. Thus through scheming and intrigues and
using Rakshasa’s own signet ring breaks up this alliance and all those who conspire against the king and
ultimately succeed in his aims.
Chanakya is the supreme head of all affairs which everyone in the play understands fully. The king does
not hesitate to bend before the minister nor does he address him in a way that ministers should be addressed.
He calls Chanakya ‘Revered Sir’ while Chanakya calls him my son, which signifies a relationship of respect
rather than of a king and his minister. At the end when Chanakya orders him to accept Rakshasa and bend
before both of them the king meekly follows his order. In the play Chandragupta does not question anything
that Chanakya does, even to the extent that when the king is ordered to invoke a fake quarrel he does not ask
why. The minister issues royal commands even of executions easily without any sort of questioning authority.
But these lines by the minister Rakshasa tell us of Chandragupta’s role, “Having imposed his mandate on
all chieftains, the Maurya is growing imperious and deeming that it is his support that has made Maurya a
king, Chanakya is filled with arrogance. One has acquired a kingdom and gained his objective. The other has
crossed the ocean of his vow.” This can be taken to mean that both of them used each other to achieve their
ends and it was only a relation of pupil and master that Chandragupta pays such respect.
The play also mentions that after achieving his purpose Chanakya retired to the life of a Brahman that is
living in the forest for the remainder of his life. This can be the reason why Megasthenes who arrived much
later at the Maurya court does not mention this important personality. Though at the same time we find small
snippets about Chanakya in different works. “According to literary evidence of a later date, Chanakya
continued for some time as minister under Bindusara.” (Munshi, p.69)
 If Chanakya was the one running the whole show how could then have Chandragupta let him leave and
later be able to defeat Seleucus and establish his sovereignity alone. Chanakya may have assisted him but to
completely discount Chandragupta seems a bit presumptious. “Chandragupta was no doubt a man of shrewd
political intelligence, and he was fortunate in his ambition in that he was assisted by an advisor of exceptional
intellectual ability and an abundance of common sense.” (Thapar, 1963, p.17) So Chanakya was a brilliant
minister but only a minister.
History shows us that men who rule in stead of others are more reluctant to give up their powers as they
can make all the decisions without assuming the day-to-day legalities and responsibilities. They can also do as
they please and have a convienient scapegoat in the real ruler. Nowhere in the joint tales of Chanakya and
Chandragupta do we find evidences of this fact.
Also a weak ruler cannot manage if he loses the support of his minister and Chandragupta does not appear
such. He defeated Seleucus and established an empire in India which was not possible if he was not capable
enough. Glimpses of Chandragupta’s administration are given by Megasthenes in great detail and nowhere is
there mention of any strong minister let alone Chanakya.
The Arthshastra does not mention Chandragupta by name but the rules and regulation laid down in it are
greatly related to him. The life of a king is fully outlined in it and that Chandragupta followed it is
corroborated by the account of Megasthenes. “Megasthenes states that the king does not sleep in day time but
remains in court the whole day for the purpose of judging causes and other public business, which was not
interrupted even when the hour arrived for massaging his body.” (Munshi, p.63) Also Chandragupta excelled
in all matters of state, political, civil and military which placed him far above the ordinary warrior king. He
selected wise and efficient minister and councillors and ambassadors. Also a sabha was held says Patanjali in
which the prominent figures are known from tradition rather than accounts. If Chanakya had been the ruling
force his name would have been without a doubt mentioned.
Almost all writers attest to the fact that no doubt Chanakya was an astute minister and a wise diplomat
who aided Chandragupta to the throne of India, to completely remove the king and attribute all to the minister
is a great injustice.
 Conclusion
Thus by examing different opinions and viewpoints it is evident that Chandragupta was the real ruler
who was aided by an able minister Chanakya who was no doubt in a large part responsible for the
instillation of Chandragupta on the throne of Magadha. But as some sources say to discount completely
the role of Chandragupta himself and show him as a weak, insignificant youth is grave injustice.
A weak ruler even if controlled by a strong hand cannot command the respect of his courtiers and his
people. In the case of Chandragupta we find that the people were in peace and the court was flourishing
while all came to the king for counsel.
Chandragupta was a wise and strong king who laid down the foundations of the first empire in India
which is characterised by an abudance of literar sources. These foundations led to the formation of the
greatest empire of Ancient India by Asoka and the eventual rise of Buddhism and its consequent spread
to the rest of the world.
Chanakya left a great impression on history in the form of Arthshastra which is one the earliest and
best works of politics and statesmanship. He might have been the man behind the show but the actor in
front was no doubt a vibrant personality who left the audience astounded!
Endnotes
i
The birth of Chandragupta is highly disputed in the original sources. The Puranas tell of Chandragupta as belonging to a
shudra caste mixed with kshtriya blood. Chandragupta is represented as a low-born connexion of the family of Nanda.
His surname Maurya is explained by the Indian authorities as meaning 'son of Mura,' who is described as a concubine of
the king. Some also link him to the race of Buddha while Buddhist source such as the Digha Nikaya, Mahavamsa and
Divayavidana link him to a family called Moriyas.
ii

Seleucus was defeated and had to purchase peace and Greek writers also tell of a matrimonial alliance but not whether a
Greek princess was sent to the Maurya court or vice versa. But the mother of Bindusara is reputed to have been Greek.
iii

Chanakya according to Brihathaka is simply a protégé of Sakatala, minister of the real Nanda. The place of birth of
Chanakya is also much disputed in different sources.
iv

The author of the Arthshastra is disputed to some extent that it was not Chanakya but Kautilya a different person. Also that
it was not a contemporary account rather it was written after a period of many years. But a comparision of Megasthenes
account and the Arthshastra verifies to some extent this claim that it was written during the time of Chandragupta Maurya.
v

Brahmans keep their hair tied up in a ponytail according to tradition and are never to let it down. Traditionally, Hindu men
shave off all their hair as a child in a saṃskāra or ritual known as the Mundan ceremony, or chudakarana, chudakarma. A
lock of hair is left at the crown. The śikhā is tied back or knotted to perform religious rites. Only funerals and death
anniversaries are performed with the śikhā untied or with dishevelled hair. Dishevelled hair is considered inauspicious, and
represents times of great sorrow or calamity.
 Bibliography
Banerjee, R.D, (1934), Prehistoric Ancient and Hindu India, India: Blackie & Sons Ltd.

Basham, A.L, (1954), The Wonder that was India, Pakistan: Royal Book Company

Dhruva, K.H (Ed.), (1923), “Vishakhadatta, ‘Mudrarakshasa or the Minister’s Signet Ring’”, Poona: The Oriental Book
Supply Agency

Hunter, W.W, (1882), the Indian Empire: Its History, People and Products, London: Trubner and Co.

Kautilya, Arthashastra, Translated by R. Shamasastry

Maunshi, K.M, (2001), The Age of Imperial Unity, India: Bhartiya Vidhya Bhavan

Nathball, Upendra, (1921), Ancient India, India: Kamala Book Depot

Rapson, E.J, (1922), the Cambridge History of India (Volume 1: Ancient India), England: Cambridge University Press

Sastri, Nilakanta, K.A (Ed.), (1967), Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, Delhi: Shri Jainendra Press

Singh, Nagendra Kumar, (1997), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, India: Anmol Publications

Subramanian V.K, (1990), Maxims of Chanakya, India: Abhinav Publications

Thapar, Romila, (2002), Penguin History of Early India: From Origins to 1300 A.D, New Delhi: Penguin

Thapar, Romila, (1963), Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Delhi: Oxford University Press