Today, in the sense we use the term ‘Rāṣtravijñāna’ (Rashtravijnana), was not used in the ancient times. The terms used to mean ‘Rāṣṭravijñāna’, can be listed as follows- Rājaśāstra, Rājadharma, Daṇḍanīti, Arthaśāstra, even Rājanīti.

Arthaśāstra is one of the synnonymous words of Rājaśāstra. It should be kept in mind at the outset that Kauṭilya is not the ‘inventor’ of the term ‘Arthaśāstra’. However, if the term artha is taken separately from arthśāstra, that is, ‘the scripture of artha’, we can find that ‘artha’ had been used so many times in ancient literature in so many senses. From birth to death, what human beings desire, can be categorised into four varga(s)– dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa. Here artha does not mean wealth only, artha means ‘necessity’, artha means ‘prosperity’. In Āpastamva Dharmasūtra, it is adviced that the brāhmaṇa whom the king will appoint in capacity of a priest, should be learned in dharma and artha. To advice the king regarding how to increase the royal treasury, or how to expand the territory of kingdom, the priest-counsellor should be well-versed in Arthaśāstra. In Mahābhārata, there are so many sages and priests, well-learned in Arthaśāstra.

Let’s come to Arthaśastra as a whole. In Mahābhārata, during the war of Kurukṣetra, Bhiṣma fell on the tenth day. There was a discussion among the Kaurava(s), and Karṇa proposed that– Droṇācārya should be made the chief-general. It was not so that he was to be assigned this duty because of his abiility as a warrior. Karṇa further said, Vṛhaspati and Sukrācārya can be found together in this man–
ko hi senāpatiḥ syadanyo’smācchukrāngirasa-darśanāt.
We have already said, Sukra and Vṛhaspati– both were authors of Rājaśāstra. Droṇācārya knows both śāstras. After that, when Droṇācārya agreed to accept the post of the chief-general at Duryodhana’s request, he says- “O Duryodhana, I know saḍaṅga Veda as well as I know the Mānavī (coming from Manu, or related to humanity) arthaśāstra —
vedaṃ saḍaṅgaṃ vedāhaṃ arthavidyāñca mānavīm.
This arthavidya is of course more ancient than that of Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Before Kauṭilya, there existed a śāstra written by Manu, which is not available to us any longer. When Kauṭilya cites the opinion of Manu and his followers, saying “iti mānavāḥ” , it was possible that frm thia ‘Mānavī Arthavidyā’, Manu’s opinions have been collected. Saying very simplistically, the Rājadharma Manu talked about, was probably defined as Arthaśāstra. This Arthavidyā was written by Prācetasa (son of Praceta) Manu.

In Śāntiparva of Mahābhārata, the term ‘Arthaśātra’ has been used directly, and it is said that the greatest of kings follow this Arthaśāstra–
yaccārthaśāstre nṛpaśiṣṭajuṣṭe.

‘Artha’ has different meanings. The meanings related to this term, in this context, are– wealth, property, the money to be gained, some object, desired fruit, concern for one’s own kingdom or that of others, and so on. Kauṭilya himself has given a meaning for his Arthaśāstra at the end of his text, which is called Tantrayukti. Tantrayukti means the assessment of the subject on which he is writing.

Kauṭilya says, artha is the means of humankind’s livelihood–
manuṣyānāṃ vṛttirarthaḥ.

At the same time, he has given another meaning to it, saying that by ‘artha’, we can refer to the land inhabited by human beings–
manuṣyavatī bhūmirityathaḥ.

So, the śāstra which speaks of the ways of the benefit and the preservation of earth, is arthaśāstra. About this meaning the scholar Shama Sastri has said,

“The subsistence of mankind is termed artha, wealth; the earth which contains mankind is termed artha, wealth; that science which treats of the means of acquiring and maintaining the earth is the Arthasastra, Science of Polity.”

While religion and philosophy come in so often while talking of the tradition of India, there at a time before the Christian eara, a man used the term artha as the basis of human life, in a sense which became so modern. On the other hand, the term ‘artha’ carries the meaning of a land inhabited by people, so it can be called the science of the maintenance and preservation of a nation-state, its land and the people inhabiting that land.

It can be said without any doubt, however, that Kauṭilya himself did not create this term, and the significance of this term was not his creation either. But giving preference to this term and composing a treatise on that, goes to his credit, and here lies his uniqueness. He had to face abuses for this, but if a man could give preference to ‘artha’ above dharma and other conventional restrictions, if is to be accepted that he was rather ‘modern’ in comparison to his time, much ahead of his time. But there is a tradition in his modernity, we are coming to that .

Daṇḍa is the major means of artha, which helps in the preservation of maintenance of the land– which we have already discussed. Daṇḍa brings in what is not there, preserves what is there, increases what is preserved, and applies the surplass.

Considering the means of preserving the land, what Arthaśāstra basically discusses, is the administrative policies of the kings. There is the civic administrative policy for the villages and cities, as well as for the foreign countries. Besides, there are discussions on internal law, war, agriculture, trade, tax, mines, rivers, forest– and the purpose of of this is the development of the nation or kingdom and the king– that is, ‘artha’. Mahābhārata has understood this in its own terms.