Vishnu Guptha (350 - 283 BC) - Part 1

Firstly this is a very big article and I am afraid if I have done justice to the person and his greatness. To the extent possible, I have tried to comprehensive. My learning about Chanakya and his work is just getting started. Wanted to provide below high level summary of the context in which this extraordinary man and his genius reached its peak.

He is known by different names - Vishnu Gupta – the name given by parents, Chanakya – son of aacharya Chanak, Kautilya – presumably because of the Gothra (Kutil) he inherited.

There are various sources which corroborate and prove that these names refer to the same person. Artha-shashtra and Chanakya Niti-shashtra are attributed to this genius - another point of debate but plenty of evidence for than against.

The Who

Born in a not so affluent, but extremely intellectual Brahmin family, he mastered the Vedic scriptures very early and showed a remarkable understanding of politics and its nuances. He was an aacharya (teacher) of political science and economics at the world renowned Takshashila university (present day Rawalpindi). He brought down the corrupt empire of the Nandas and helped founding the Mauryan empire – which for the first time unified all warring states under one rule – for the first time, Indian subcontinent was under a single ruler. The Mauryan dynasty was sustained and expanded, thanks to the guiding principles he put down in his Artha-shastra and Niti-shashtra.

He is someone who proved to the world that wit and grit matters more than money and power. He was a kingmaker, master politician and an economic genius. He was to Chandragupta what Aristotle was to Alexander the great, or what Krishna was to Arjuna.

His ideal India is the one which is united under one king - an India devoid of petty fighting - with a well organized administration and defense. The pursuit of Dharma can only be carried out in such a state of unity and peace. Behind the scenes his effort was instrumental in the defeat of Alexander and his men marching any further into India. He strung together the people and the kingdoms using heritage and cultural bonds they shared – made them realize their common enemy.

Above everything else Chanakya was a realist. It is this single attribute which sets him apart from his predecessors. Previous shashtras by others - Brihaspati (Brihaspati Samhita of Garuda Purana), Shukracharya(Shukra-Niti), Bhartrihari(Niti-Shataka) Vishnusharma(Pancatantra) and Manu (Manu Dharma) - preached dharma and the art of politics at an ideal realm. As always there is a gap between idealism and reality that shows up occasionally. It needed a genius, to be able to digest all that knowledge that existed before, reflect on it, apply it, and from his experience critically analyze, contradict or refine pre-existing laws. Though most of what he did was to compile existing treatises, he was not afraid of being contradict a previous treatise.

The Story

As you can see, Chanakya lived at around the same period (350 to 283 BC) as Alexander the great. He was born in the kingdom of Magadh, where there was a corrupt government run by the Nanda dynasty king Mahanand. Among other honest men, Chanakya’s father Chanak ( friend of a honest Prime Minister Shatkar)was arrested on speaking against the king and his rule in public places. He refused to eat in captivity and dies. Vishnu gupta leaves home, goes to Takshashila for education – graduates top of the class and continues to teach there.

Initially he is not concerned about state politics. He teaches sons of kings and ministers at Takshashila. He and his methods were respected and revered by everyone. His students and classmates were holding high positions in various kingdoms. Alexander defeated the huge army of Porus and Gandhara falls into chaos. The commotion resulted in refugees flocking into Takshashila for cover. The small kingdoms were at each other’s throat than realizing the seriousness of Alexander’s invasion. Observing the Greek strategy of divide-and-conquer, Chanakya felt the need for a revolution to unite the fighting kingdoms and its subjects to pose a strong front against the invasion.

He leaves Takshashila and goes to Pataliputra. A usually money hungry king Dhananand, who introduced multitude of taxes, does a 180 turn once Chanakya is in his capital. He starts distributing money back to public. Chanakya is being included in the committee responsible for distribution of funds/material. He is wrongly accused by the Nanda king and is taken off his post. He swears to dethrone the corrupt king – just as he was unjustly relieved from his job.

He meet Chandragupta as a boy (They have an age difference of around 30 years). He hand picks aacharyas who will teach him the arts of warface, politics – everything he requires to become a king. Then various levels of diplomacy, espionage, direct confrontation and war eventually leads to the demise of the Nanda dynasty. The incredibly skilled prime minister of Dhananand - Amatya Raakshas is outsmarted by Chanakya. But Amatya Rakshas is was reinstated as prime minister – only this time to Chandragupta.

Next two centuries of peace was ushered by the son and grandsons of Chandragupta – Bindhusara and Ashokavardhana. Chanakya himself, who is in his 80s, is killed by a jealous minister of Bindhusara.

The Works – Arthashastra and Chanakya Niti Shastra

Arthashastra - The manual that describes in detail the economy of the Mauryan empire. How the king can retain and increase his wealth, taxes and levies around different businesses, fines for breaking rules/law, how the public machinery is organized, duties of each post, how to keep checks on corruption, how the army and the war machinery was structured, how important it is for the king and superior officers to use spies and other intelligence mechanisms to govern their subordinates etc.

It defines monetary transactions, trade between individuals, businesses and countries. It deals in great detail about inheritance laws, rights of heirs, widows, divorced/separated, and other domestic disputes. Can’t do full justice to this text in this blog – needs entire books to explain the whole Arthashastra

I would like to quote here a verse from —Boesche (source wiki) about Arthashastra

“Is there any other book that talks so openly about when using violence is justified? When assassinating an enemy is useful? When killing domestic opponents is wise? How one uses secret agents? When one needs to sacrifice one's own secret agent? How the king can use women and children as spies and even assassins? When a nation should violate a treaty and invade its neighbor? Kautilya — and to my knowledge only Kautilya — addresses all those questions. In what cases must a king spy on his own people? How should a king test his ministers, even his own family members, to see if they are worthy of trust? When must a king kill a prince, his own son, who is heir to the throne? How does one protect a king from poison? What precautions must a king take against assassination by one's own wife? When is it appropriate to arrest a troublemaker on suspicion alone? When is torture justified? At some point, every reader wonders: Is there not one question that Kautilya found immoral, too terrible to ask in a book? No, not one. And this is what brings a frightful chill. But this is also why Kautilya was the first great, unrelenting political realist. —Boesche”

Sukra Niti, or Manu dharma are considered the most elaborate and comprehensive in defining Dharma and Dhandaniti (Politics). But Chanakya dwells more on controversial and real-life questions –the darker areas not illuminated by the others. May be the reality during their time of these older shashtras were different than the reality at the time of Chanakya. But we can only speculate on that point.

There are comparisons made between Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and the Arthashastra which predated it by around 16 centuries. This is what Max Weber had to say :

“Truly radical 'Machiavellianism', in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthasastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli’s The Prince is harmless. – Max Weber”

Niti Shastra - This work is a collection of various maxims, practical applicable to any situation to this date. Again show the mark of a realist.

Due to the Mughal and British occupations and our lackadaisical keeping of historic artifacts, Chanakya’s works were lost, rediscovered only around early 1900s. Dr.Shyamasasthri did a translation of the actual Sanskrit scripture, post which R.P.Kangle and many other learned scholars have written elaborate commentaries on Chanakya’s work. Now it is standard syllabus for beurocrats and political students in India and europe.

Mythological References

Vishnu Purana, Bhagavatha, Vayu and Matsya Puranas seems to have references to Chanakya. But all puranas have dubious composed dates. It is very possible that such references were placed – to attribute an older age to the puranas than they actually are. Passing history as prophecy helped place the Puranas in an older time frame.

To be continued...

Thoughts set off by a movie

Saw a tamil movie called Ezhaam arivu. It is a sci-fi movie with as much commecialism as science. It was about a tamilian named Bodhi Dharma who was born in Kanchipuram and became a beacon of Mahayana Buddhism and martial arts in China and the far east. What he started in Shaolin became and innumerable number of styles that we see today in Chinese Kungfu. Kalari - the mother of kung fu is nowhere as popular as its child - lost mainly lost due to some short-sighted gurus witholding knowledge from his student, and a total ban on its practice during the british occupation. The movie though, ended with a tinge of despair - about our apathy towards history and the current identity crisis.

This post is less about the movie than the questions it raised. I was mainly interested in two things.

Why things happened the way it happened? Why did India lose out on the various scientific advances, mathematical, political, artistic, philosophical and spiritual progresses that we made when countries to our west and east were in their dark ages?

The second major question is - Bodhi dharma is but one page in the library of indian icons who had a world changing impact. There are way too many of them to be covered effectively by movies. I believe commercializing this movie diluted the amount of history that could have been imparted otherwise. Since a documentary is one genre which is unheard of in India, I believe blogs as the most viable means to disseminate information.

I am going to try and dig out real stars from ancient and medieval India who revolutionized various paths of life. Will try to gather inventions and discoveries associated with anonymous Indians and India. Hopefully this will lead to some learnings for myself and the readers of this blog. As always my source would be wikipedia and google. I would try to source evidence whenever possible.

Record keeping has not been a strength of ancient India. And considering that this is a country repeatedly invaded by people from the north-west, the Mughals, the british etc, existing treatises have not survived unchanged. What we possess, might vary from concrete information, to circumstantial evidence, to myths, to suppositions to my own vague theories.

While writing about history, I feel that to strive for accuracy is as important as stating facts and what could have been, and let the reader draw her/his own conclusions. Thats what I will try to do

Contagion

Uffff long time.. being trying to get back to blogging but could not. Lot happening in life. Bit of reading, lot of work, and plenty of family keeping me busy. Movies going on at regular intervals.

Last movie I saw was the Contagion. Wasn't a bad movie and I would personally give it a 6 out of 10 unlike IMDB which off late has been providing inflated rating for every new movie. The screenplay and background score were good and the acting was also decent.

The story is about how a new viral strain causes flu like symptoms in humans and kills them with a gestation period of less than a week. It turns into a pandemic soon enough as it starts from one of the busiest ports world around. It is race of time - time taken to make and test a vaccine, scams around the world possible cures, fear and panic, kidnapping of UN personnel and coercion for vaccines, scarcity and people ravaging shops etc. A small % of the population seemed to be immune. There is an dissatisfied journalist who quits his job and takes to blogging - becomes an important character in shaping events of the story.

I have only two gripes

The climax is where I was expecting some major twists. Especially a doctor character who gives away his dose of vaccine to a small boy - never wears any protection against the virus - walks around very normal throughout the movie. I was looking for a huge conspiracy like a Sidney Sheldon novel, which did not happen.

On many notes the theme of the movie was obvious. When there is a disease, the fastest and only cure will be American. Supremacy of the American medical research, their self-righteous high-value system, using lots and birthdays to (slowly) distribute the much needed vaccine, people forming queues to receive it etc. With the rate of spread and 6 Billion global population, their rate of production and administration of the vaccine is never openly discussed. Saving the real world in this kind of a calamity can neither be this fast, nor this free.

Thankfully there was no conspiracy angle which would have turned this to a B-grade movie. Amazing cast and score, good screenplay and story, makes it a good one time watch. Unrealistic speeds of tackling and curtailing this disease reiterates that it only happens in a movie.

OBL Gone

Osama Bin Laden has been eliminated. Pakistanis argue sovereignty issues while neglecting the internal help that has kept OBL alive and well all these years.

The timing of the hunt and the quick disposal of the body triggers a lot of questions. There are two major premises/assumptions that I am going to base my explanations on.

a. OBL was alive
1. The Americans come along and say you help us to fight OBL. Pakistans asks the US what they would get in return. Long string of negotiations follow and a long term aid package is announce and ratified by congress
2. Pakistanis start realizing the aid in terms of arms, ammunitions fighters etc. Feel good factor - world sees in Pakistan an ally in the war against terror. Pakistan sees a different problem - a world where OBL has been eliminated - and their aid dwindling
3. They have to find OBL and lock him up. ISI was issued the task of walking into the war zone and get Osama safely over to Pakistan. They have to commended for the secrecy with which they carried out their tasks.
4. Means used by ISI may be one of benevolence, coercion, a false hope of regrouping etc. But OBL bought their lies or was kidnapped by the ISI to safety. They put him up where no one expected him and where no one would dare launch a strike - in an army cantonment.
5. Pakistan gets caught with its pants down. US attacks and kills OBL.

b. OBL was dead (or so thought most within ISI, Army, govt of Pakistan)
1. The Americans come along and say you help us to fight OBL. Pakistans asks the US what they would get in return. Long string of negotiations follow and a long term aid package is announce and ratified by congress
2. Bush goes after OBL. Bombs the caves of Afghanistan. Kills/Captures OBL in one of the raids. OBLs friends swear revenge on the US, but don't want to out the news that would disrupt the Jihad. ISI digs out facts, but is asked not to reveal anything.
3. For reasons known only to Uncle Bush, they want the war to go on (capitalism - more bombs, more armour, more money. War is good for business). Meanwhile ties with India grow at the expense of Pakistan, 123 nuclear deal etc get signed
4. US Economy crumbles. Elections happen and Obama comes to power. He asks the CIA chief where OBL is hiding and why have they not been able to nail him. CIA says that they already have nailed him - shows him the photos/video of OBL. Obama says - keep him safe, he is our ticket out of this war and also my ace for winning the next elections
5. Indo-US strategic ties peak. US economy is unable to afford the war. President Obama has an election to win - against record unemployed and inflation. He calls his army and CIA guys.
6. He tells them - take OBL and his family and put them in a house in abottabad. Create a scene that looks like OBLs been killed by the heroic US Navy Seals. They have a technical hitch, blow up one chopper. Say stories about throwing the body into the sea (which is so far off for any helicopter to reach)
7. Paksitan really unaware of CIAs plan. Genuinely not knowing how OBL could have ended up in Abottabad - but unable to forgive itself for not telling the world about OBLs capture/killing years ago. They have been receiving aid and kept quite. Now they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

So either ways. Too many unknowns. We don't know when or how OBL was killed. He was disposed off in such a hurried fashion (compared to say, Saddam), no trace of his existence. No sea in the vicinity to drop the body - one chopper wont have the fuel/range to reach any sea based dumping point and return to dry land.

Only one thing is certain - the US wont stake its reputation in calling OBL dead, if he is still alive. Another certainty is the vigor with which American aid to Pakistan will be questioned. Interesting thing would be to see if and when American soldiers pull out of the war on terror in Af-Pak region. That will add more sense to the timing of things..

Manirathnam's affair with history

Manirathnam has made films based on two of the biggest epics - Ramayana (Raavan) and Mahabharatha (Thalpathi). I cant but admire this guy's passion for portraying the bad guy and the good guy in shades of grey - than black and white.

 

We know that the history belongs to the victor - and that losers are branded as demons/dictators... you get the idea. But Manirathnam is anything but one dimensional - many of his other films portray racial violence, family, love, children and several different themes. But when it comes to stories based on history, why is this inclination? My first thought was he is a rebel - someone against established ideas and facts.

 

But I think it goes beyond his denial of facts or wanting to present a opposing point of view. I think he is drawing a parallel between times then and times now. He is trying to portray the fact that there is no fairness in a fight and that you just cant tell apart a good guy from a bad guy. Not when it is a matter of survival and ideology - not when you have a gang of loyal followers. Everybody has a justification, everybody does things which they are not proud of and everybody wants to win.

 

No film maker would have dared to touch a subject like Iruvar. And I should say he did as much justice to historic facts as possible in a commercial movie. It is a movie out of its time. Contemporary history always has its risks. Important thing is he took that risk for voicing his view of history. This guy's flair for history is something that awes me time and again. And I like grey better than white or black. Pure white or black only exists in the world of fiction and our writer-director here is much closer to history than fiction.